Case Law Details
In the instant case, the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 98,000 was received by him as gift from `M’ on account of love and affection by two drafts. Indeed, the amount of Rs. 98,000 was credited in the account books of the assessee for the previous year. `M’ appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and his statement was recorded. He had stated (i) that he was owner of 11-12 acres of agriculture land; (ii) that his income was Rs. 2 lakhs per annum; (iii) that his family consisted of his wife, son, son’s wife and three grand children; (iv) that an amount of Rs. 60,000 was spent by him on household expenses; (v) that he knew the assessee because the assessee’s father was running a coal depot; (vi) that he was not aware of the age of the assessee and names of the members of the assessee’s family; (vii) that he never visited the house of the assessee at Chandigarh; (viii) that he had no bank account; (ix) that he had never made any gift to his family members or any one else except the assessee. That statement of `M’ raised questions as to whether `M’ had the capacity to make a gift of Rs. 98,000 to the assessee, who was not in his relation and he only knew him through his father; and whether the gift was on account of love and affection. The answer was inevitably in negative. A simple identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of gift was made by the assessee, the onus lay on him not only to establish the identity of that person making the gift but also his capacity to make a gift; and that it had actually been received as a gift from the donor. Financial position of the donor suggested that he was neither in the capacity to make gift nor was having the source from where the gift was made. No reason whatsoever had been assigned for gifting such a huge amount by the donor to the assessee. The donor never visited home of the assessee. Where was the love and affection ? It was nothing but a subterfuge to avoid income-tax. Therefore, the transactions were not genuine ones.
