Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 262 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Cash Credits - genuineness of the gifts and creditworthiness of the donors - Onus to prove - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts, we are inclined to hold that the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the gifts and thereafter the burden did shift to the AO who also seems to have taken some steps by issuing summons to the donors but in our opinion he could have followed up the same by tracing them through their AOs and have them examined which would have helped matters. On the evidence adduced by the assessee, it is difficult to doubt the creditworthiness of the donors and the sources of the gifts and the genuineness of the transactions. In our opinion, each case has to be decided on its own facts, since no two cases may be identical. The general principle which could be culled from the authorities is that it is for the assessee to lead evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the donors and the genuineness of the gifts. No single factor can be said to clinch the issue in favour of the assessee or against him and the entire evidence has to be assessed on a wholesome basis. It has been held in several authorities, including the judgment in CIT vs. Anil Kumar [2007 (3) TMI 223 - DELHI HIGH COURT] on behalf of the Department that mere identification of the donor and the movement of the monies through banking channels are not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gifts and that it is also necessary for the assessee to show the financial capacity and creditworthiness of the donors, their relationship with the assessee, the sources of the gifts and their capacity to give such large amounts to the assessee. Thus, in addition to establishing the identity of the donors and the fact that the monies came through bank accounts, the assessee was able to discharge the initial burden of showing the source of the gifts and the financial capacity of the donors and was also able to point out that the donors were also assessed to income-tax. Taking the evidence adduced by the assessee overall, we hold that the Departmental authorities were not justified in adding the amount as the income of the assessee. We delete the same and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
|