TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Shivaji B. Ghode, D.R. ORDER Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, J. M. This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai, dated 04.07.2014 for A.Y. 2006-07 on following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of income of ₹ 68,66,375/- being gift of India Millennium Deposit received as unexplained credit under section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. It is respectfully submitted that proceeds of India Millennium Deposit cash not be brought to tax in the hands of appellant by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The main issue in this appeal is with regard to addition of ₹ 68,66,375/- on account of gift received by assessee of Indian Millennium Deposit (hereinafter called as IMD ) bond. The deposit of IMD bond to the extent of ₹ 68,66,378/- in the bank account of assessee were shown as gift received and the same were claimed as exempt under the provisions of Section 10(15)(iid)(c) of the Act. Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings asked the assessee to furnish necessary evidences to establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same is from non relative and also the same is given and received after first day of September 2004. He further observed that exemption claimed by assessee of interest earned on the bonds under the provisions of Section 10(15) of the Act were not allowed as the bonds had been gifted just prior to maturity after lapse of 57 months out of 60 months of such bonds. Assessing Officer without prejudice to the above, mentioned that even if for a belief sake the amount of IMD gifted was in any way believed to be outside purview of definition of any sum of money , the whole amount of ₹ 68,66,378/- needed to be taxed as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act for the reason of the same being in the nature of Hawala transaction and brought into the books by assessee for which the antecedents cannot be proved to be love and affection by the donor. 2.2 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were mainly raised with regard to IMDs are not any sum of money and further, regarding genuineness of creditor. Assessee raised various submissions and considering the same, CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. 2.3 Same has been opposed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g facts were not in dispute: (a) the identity of the donor was not in doubt; (b) gift was given by a declaration deed; (c) donor had given an affidavit affirming the making of the gift; (d) there was a confirmation through post of gift per demand draft; (e) affirmation of the assessee in examination on oath recorded by the Assessing Officer; (f) affirmation of the donor in examination on oath recorded; (g) direct reply of the donor to the Assessing Officer confirming the gift; (h) donor was stated to be a friend of the assessee s father; (i) donor was doing some finance business; and (j) source of the gift was the receipt through a cheque of ₹ 2,46,000 received by the donor from B Ltd. and a cash amount of ₹ 3,500. 2.5 All these facts establish the fact that a gift was received by assessee and the sources thereof are satisfactorily explainable and proved putting its genuineness beyond doubt. The adverse facts as pointed out by the Accountant Member: (i) that the assessee or his father never made any gift of any amount to anybody; (ii) that the gift was not on any occasion or function; (iii) that the donor visited his house one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act w.e.f 01.04.2005. Assessee also filed the copies of certificates of IMDs bearing numbers C151871 to C151875 and C161772 to 161776. In view of this, we hold that gift in question does not fall within the purview of any sum as envisaged in Section 56(2)(v) of the Act. 2.7 Further, ld. Authorized Representative relied on the relevant portion of ITAT in Avinash Kumar Singh (supra) held as under: 7. When there are two possible views one in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of the Revenue, which view should be accepted is a million dollar question before us. The view in favour of the assessee is fortified with numerous evidences which forms a complete chain of events, as has been discussed above. The occasion of having made this gift has been explained by the donor himself that he was obliged by the father of the donee in the year 1994 during his visit to deity Vaishno Devi when the father of the assessee helped him and his family members. Thus, the occasion and reason for making a gift are also given by the donor, albeit, as of now these are no longer the requirements of a valid gift in view of recent decision of the Tribunal in Miss Mayawati s case, includi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
