9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Revision of assessment order under section 263 based on gifts received from NRI accounts without proper examination of donors' identity, capacity, and creditworthiness. Analysis: The appeal challenges the revision of the assessment order under section 263, focusing on gifts received from NRI accounts. The CIT set aside the assessment due to inadequate examination of the donors' identity, capacity, and creditworthiness. The assessee argued that evidence provided during assessment proceedings established the gifts' genuineness, emphasizing the acceptance by the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT found the assessment erroneous as the donors' financial capacity and source of funds were not properly verified, citing legal precedents emphasizing the onus on the assessee to prove gift genuineness and donor's financial capacity. The dispute revolves around the sufficiency of evidence to establish donors' creditworthiness and source of gifted funds. The assessee contended that gifts via NRE accounts indicated foreign remittances, negating the need for further verification. In contrast, the CIT and the DR argued that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries, rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Legal principles highlighted the onus on the assessee to prove gift genuineness and donor's financial capacity, underscoring the need for thorough verification. The tribunal analyzed the evidence and legal precedents to determine the adequacy of the Assessing Officer's examination. Despite the assessee's arguments, the tribunal found the assessment lacking in verifying donors' creditworthiness and fund sources, aligning with legal principles emphasizing the onus on the assessee to substantiate gift genuineness and donor's financial capacity. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the CIT's decision under section 263, dismissing the appeal and affirming the need for a fresh assessment to address the deficiencies in the original assessment order.
|
