9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2 lakhs towards unverifiable nature of expenses. This addition was confirmed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal. It was in these circumstances, the assessee has come up in this revision filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, framing the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court: "a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities were right in invoking the provisions of Sec.68 of the Act in respect of the gift received from the appellant's brother when (1) there is no dispute regarding the identity of the "donor" (2) the donor has proved his capacity to make the gift by proving that he has received Dh.11 lakhs (Rs.110 lakhs) in connection with his retirement and (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns account? e) Whether the Assessing Authority was right in suspecting the genuineness of the gift on the ground that "there was no special occasion for the gift", when the gift is NOT TO THIRD PARTIES, BUT TO OWN BROTHER? f) Whether, in view of the fact that (1) the donor is the brother of the appellant, (2) admittedly he has received Rs. 110 lakhs from his firm from which retired (as certified by the firm), (3) the gift has been properly confirmed through a duly Notarized Affidavit by the "donor", the authorities were right in holding that "the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered to have been established and that creditworthiness of the donor has not been established"? g) Whether the authorities erred in applying the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e donor is concerned, the Tribunal has found that the assessee has not produced the balance sheet or financial statement or cash flow statement of the donor. Similarly, there was also no material to show that the sums gifted were the sums received by the donor on his requirement from the firm of which he was a partner. That apart, it was also found that the donor had received his retirement benefits from the firm in the previous assessment year and in the previous year also, the assessee had received substantial sums from the donor. The authenticity of the certificate of disbursement of sums to the donor, issued by the firm, also was rightly declined to be accepted for non production of supporting documents. Therefore, we concur with the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
