9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the source of the source to establish the genuineness of the gift and creditworthiness of the donor. The second grievance is regarding confirming the addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of low withdrawals for house hold expenses. 3. Learned A.R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions, which were raised before CIT(A) whereas Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the first issue in dispute regarding gift of Rs. 4 lacs was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- "4.1.1 The grounds no. 2, 3 & 4 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources of income shown at Rs. 66.172/- by the appellant are interest income and long term capital gains. The onus was on the appellant to prove the sources of the source in order to establish that the gift is genuine and that donors have creditworthiness. The appellant has failed to do so. Merely relying on the fact that cheque was made for gift does not discharge the onus of the appellant. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Umesh Krishnani vs Income-tax Officer [2013] 35 taxmann. Com 598 (Gujarat)/[2013] 217 Taxmann 13 (Gujrat) where it has been held that ''it was noted that yearly earnings of lenders were either less or almost similar to what they loaned to assessee - It was also found that substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for in the assessment order, in this regard. Grounds of appeal are dismissed." 5. From the above paras from the order of learned CIT(A), we find that it is noted by CIT(A) that it was the submission of the assessee before him that the gift was received by the assessee from her uncle and grandmother. It is also noted by CIT(A) that the assessee has furnished gift deed for the same. He has also observed that these details at best prove the identity of donors but not the genuineness of the gifts and creditworthiness of the donors. In this regard, we find that it is also noted by CIT (A) that the bank account details of the donor reveal cash deposits in their bank account before issuing cheques of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the assessee. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.R. of the Revenue. Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is not justified. Regarding two judgments followed by CIT(A), as has been noted by him on pages 8 & 9 of his order, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, these judgments are not applicable and hence, we delete the addition of Rs. 4 lacs. 6. Regarding the second addition of Rs. 9,000/-, we find that it is noted by CIT(A) in Para 4.4 of his order that the house hold expenses of Rs. 3,000/- i.e. Rs. 250/- per month is low, even by standard of pocket money during the period. He has also noted that the assessee herself has declared income of Rs. 6,20,689/- during the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
