COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. S.K.JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal filed under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) THE present controversy relates to Assessment year 1996 -97. The return of income to the tune of Rs. 28,92,297/ - was filed by the assessee in January, 1997 and processed under Section 143 (1) (a) by the Assessing Authority. A notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued and the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of scrutiny of one of the current account lying in Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi it was found by the Assessing Authority that among other deposits there was a deposit of Rs. 10,00000/ - dated 5.7.1995. The assessee explained the deposit stating that the amount has come as gift from one Dr. Chitranjan Jain. In response of the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Authority had required from the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of Dr. Chitranjan Jain alongwith documentary evidence in support of Rs. 10,00000/ - as gift. The assessee, in response, stated that the amount of Rs. 10,00000/ - received as gift from N.R.E. account. Alongwith response the assessee had submitted a part of transcript of NRE account of Dr. Chitranjan Jain with the City Bank Delhi. As a proof with regard to creditworthiness of Dr. Chitranjan Jain, a copy of income tax return filed in USA was also enclosed. The Assessing Authority had disbelieved the evidence on the ground that response submitted by assessee was only part of transcript of N.R.E. account of the alleged donor. Accordingly, finding has been recorded by the Assessing Authority that it was not sufficient enough to prove the creditworthiness of donor as well as genuineness of alleged gift. Assessing Authority had added the amount of Rs. 10,00000/ - as income from other source.

(3.) SHRI D.D. Chopra while assailing the concurrent finding of two forum submits that since only a part of transcript of N.R.E was furnished it raises reasonable doubt about the transaction. It is further submitted that burden was on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness before the Assessing Authority with all material and creditworthiness evidence.