TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,16,265 made by the Assessing Officer on account of receipt of gifts of the same amount from the son of your appellant." 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is an individual and a senior citizen having income mainly from interest. The Assessing Officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee, in his balance sheet, had shown amount of Rs. 21,16,265, as gift received from his son, Mr. Abhay Popatlal Ruparell, who is resident of London, U.K. The assessee, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, submitted two gift deeds dated 2nd October 2007 and 26th November 2007, signed by the donor i.e., his son. The assessee further submitted that the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made from the joint account OF Mr. Bharat Popatlal Ruparell, and Mr. Abhay Popatlal Ruparell for U.S. $ 29,993; v) Inward remittance certificates issued by the Axis Bank along with the bank statement of the Axis Bank wherein the assessee had the account; vi) Address and copy of passport of Mr. Abhay Popatlal Ruparell; and vii) Copy of return of income along with the computation of income for the assessment year 2008-09; 4. It was further submitted that Mr. Abhay Popatlal Ruparell, had also appeared before the Assessing Officer and in his presence, he has confirmed the said gift and also put his signature so that the Assessing Officer can verify the genuineness and authenticity of the transactions. All these facts have not been ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar, [2008] 167 Taxman 143 (Del.), wherein it has been held that the movement of amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift and the onus lies on the donee to establish the identity and capacity of the donor. Besides this, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tirathram Gupta v/s CIT, [2008] 304 ITR 145 (P&H). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the assessee's reliance on the proviso to section 56(2)(vi) as the said section does not give blanket exemption to all the receipts of gift from relative. Genuineness of the transactions and the source have to be proved, which has not been done in this case. 6. Before us, the learned counsel, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redited. Besides this, he also referred to the other documents, which was filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding the learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s observations about the capacity of the donor to give the gift to the assessee, Mr. Girish Dave, submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the income shown in the income tax return filed by the donee in India without considering the fact the source of the gift, if at all would be reflected, it would be in the income tax return filed in the U.K. The income which has been shown in India, are the only income which has arisen or accrued in India. Otherwise also, when direct source has been explained by the donor, then the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The source can be explained by prima-facie proving the identity of the person giving the amount, genuineness of the transaction and also the creditworthiness of the person who has given the sum. If the nature and source is proved, then the addition cannot be made under the deeming provision of section 68, unless such explanation is rebutted by some cogent material on record. In the present case, to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee had furnished, firstly, two gift deeds signed by the donor giving the entire details of the factum of gift; secondly, certificate of the British company Commercial International G.B. Ltd., wherein Mr. Abhay Popatlal Ruparell, the donor here....