TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 67,00,000/- representing the gift received from the brother which was treated as undisclosed income. 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and filed his return of income declaring income of Rs. 24,210/- only. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown receipt of gift through banking channel for an amount of Rs. 67,00,000/- from his brother namely Shri Tejas R Mehta. The assessee in response to such gift has filed the copy of PAN of his brother, copy of computation of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee in support of his contention has filed the Annual account of the donor which were already available with the AO along with the ITR filed by the donor. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also contended that he has received the gift by way of rotation/ in different instalment and therefore the entire amount cannot be assumed as unexplained income of the assessee. 6. Ld. CIT(A), called for the remand report vide letter dated 23/12/2016 for gift of Rs. 70 lacs given by the assessee to the donor being his brother. The AO vide letter dated 10/03/2017 furnished the remand report reiterating that there was no capacity of Shri Tejas Mehta to extend gift of Rs. 67 lacs to the assessee. The AO in the remand report also submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: In view of these facts the AO in remand report has rejected contention of assessee. In the rejoinder the appellant has contended that there being no entry in cash book of Tejas Mehta does not adversely affect the gift received by appellant and that the appellant never submitted that the gifts received were directly sourced by the gifts given. From above facts and circumstances, I find that the assessee at assessment stage never claimed that the assessee had given gifts to the Tejas Mehta. This is an important fact in the matter. It is at appellate stage that he claimed that AO did not appreciate that assessee had given a gift of Rs. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (v) the gifts claimed to have been made by assessee being in cash, (vi) the assessee claiming that gifts were not the immediate sources in hands of Tejas Mehta and (vii) some gifts being made by Tejas Mehta prior to said receipt of gifts, I have no hesitation in holding that this is all a concoction and make believe story by assessee. The assessee has failed to prove capacity of donor and genuineness of gift and accordingly the addition is confirmed and ground of appeal is rejected. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 183 and other details on the direction of the ITAT running from pages 1 to 120 and contended that all t....