TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was asked to appear in person before the Assessing Officer, however, he never appeared. Since, the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the transaction nor he established the identity of the donor, nor the capacity of donor to make gift, as such the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was wrong in deleting the addition on account of gift alleged to have been received by the assessee. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - Madan B. Lokur And V. B. Gupta JJ. For the Appellant : R. D. Jolly For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 144 of the Act. The assessee neither appeared personally nor furnished the requisite information to the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on the merits. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received two gifts of Rs. 10 lakhs each from NRE accounts of two donors namely Sh. Vinod Kumar Ghai and Sh. David Paramjit Gill. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had filed no evidence to prove the capacity of the donors for giving these substantial gifts, though the assessee in his reply dated November 5, 2001, had stated that he has also submitted form of gift deeds, affidavits of two donors, passport of two donors as well as bank certificates relating to these gift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the assessee that the assessee duly declared these two gifts in his capital account at the time of original assessment and he submitted necessary evidence in the form of gift deeds, affidavits of donors, copies of the passport of the two donors and bank certificate confirming the payment by pay order from the NRE accounts of the two donors and in support of his contention, learned counsel cited two decisions of our own High Court, CIT v. Mrs. Sunita Vachani [1990] 184 ITR 121 and CIT v. R. S. Sibal [2004] 269 ITR 429 (Delhi). 9. The question to be seen here is as to whether the identity of donors has been established and whether they had the capacity to make such a gift or not. In CIT v. R. S. Sibal [2004] 269 ITR 429 (Delhi), it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that admittedly said Subhash Sethi was not related to the assessee, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact warranting no interference. We find it difficult to hold that on the facts of the instant case proper opportunity had not been granted to the assessee to prove the gift. 11. So, from the aforesaid judgments, the position which emerges is as under : (i) Mere identification of donor and showing the movement of gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuine ness of the gift. (ii) Since the claim of the gift is made by the assessee, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
