SUNIL THOMAS KANJOOPARAMBIL BUILDING Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA 19/2014 concerning the assessment year 2009-2010. The issue raised in this appeal is confined to assessment of an amount of 1,66,01,834/- as the income of the assessee on the ground that he failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the donor, his brother, to advance the money as required under Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. It is in this C. R. background, the assessee has filed these appeals framing the following questions of law for consideration of this court:

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is the Director of a private limited company known as Core Fundamental and Developers Private Limited. In his return for the assessment year 2009-2010, the assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 1,95,000.00. The return ? was processed under Sec. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice under Sec. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. It was found that the assessee had shown income from other sources as 'nil' claiming deduction under Sec. 56(2) in respect of gift of Rs. 1,66,01,834/- received from his brother, Sri.Sudeep Thomas, a Non Resident Indian employed in Dubai. Various opportunities were given to the assessee to prove the requirements of Sec. 68 of the Act such as identity of the donor, genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of his brother to advance the money, etc.

(3.) Reading of the impugned orders show that the identity of the donor, his brother, Sri. Sudeep Thomas, was not a matter of dispute. However, insofar as the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the donor are concerned, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities concurrently is that the assessee has failed to prove these requirements. Insofar as these two aspects are concerned, it is seen that the assessee has produced only documents which evidenced that the money was transferred to him through banking channels and from the account of his brother in Abudabi Commercial Bank. However, despite repeated opportunities that were extended to the assessee, no evidence whatsoever was produced by him to prove that his brother had capacity to gift the amounts gifted to his brother or that the transaction was genuine. It was in these circumstances that the Income Tax Officer assessed the amount as income of the assessee.