Case Law Details
Padmalatha Tama Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
The assessee has received gift from her daughter. The AO has verified the details of this transaction by asking the assessee to file the bank statement and confirmation from her. The same was filed before the AO. The transaction was done by T. Veena only through banking channel. Ms. T. Veena also filed the sources for the funds received by her i.e. she had taken loan from Mr. P. Srinu Babu and P. Rajendra. As far as, assessee is concerned, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were proved. The AO and CIT(A) have doubted the creditworthiness of assessee’s daughter. It is irrelevant for the assessee to prove as the assessee has brought on record not only the source but source of source also. It is for the revenue to initiate proceedings in the case of T. Veena, if they are not satisfied with the submission of Ms. T. Veena. As far as the assessee is concerned, she had received the gift from her daughter through banking channel, hence, she has proved identity and genuineness of the transaction and for creditworthiness, she had brought on record the bank statement & PAN of her daughter. Therefore, assessee has discharged her part of duty.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10/10/2016 of CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad for AY 2010-11.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee who derives income from ‘house property’ and ‘income from other sources, filed her return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 27/07/2010 declaring an income of Rs. 17,75,810/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dated 25/08/2011 was issued and served on the assessee on 06/09/2011. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the information called for.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
