Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 672 - AT - Income TaxAddition of undisclosed income u/s 68 – Gift received from brother – Genuineness of transaction – Held that:- Huge amount of ₹ 1,66,01,834/- was received from the assessee’s brother, Shri Sudeep Thomas through banking channel – assessee claimed that since Shri Sudeep Thomas has given the amount to the assessee who is his brother for the purpose of purchase of residential property - This amount received from the bank account of Shri Sudeep Thomas with ADCB Bank, Dubai was transferred to the bank account of the assessee in India - There is sufficient balance in the bank account of Shri Sudeep Thomas and being so, the capacity of Shri Sudeep Thomas to lend that much amount to the assessee cannot be doubted as he was employed as Consultant Engineer in an oil field in Dubai and he was also Managing Director of his own company - the real nature of the transaction should be ascertained by the AO and the assessee is required not only to prove the identity of the credit but is also required to prove the capacity of the creditor to lend the money and the genuineness of the transaction - assessee has been able to prove the identity of the creditor by furnishing the confirmation letter. The genuineness of the transaction is not proved - The receipt of money through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the credit - huge amount was deposited into the bank account of Shri Sudeep Thomas before transferring the same to the assessee’s bank account - assessee was not able to produce any bank account details of Shri Sudeep Thomas from where he has received such amount - as per sec. 68, the assessee is required to explain the capacity of the lender to advance money to the assessee to the satisfaction of the AO - the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act is warranted - The onus is on the part of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of assessee’s brother, genuineness of the transaction, and identity of the creditor. Merely because confirmation letter from the creditor was furnished that funds were transferred to the assessee’s bank account, it will not prove the genuineness of the transactions as decided in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala 2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME Court] - the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee.
|