Deepak Maheshbhai Amin(HUF), Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(3), Surat

ITA 1398/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 139820514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA SR D R
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL R SHAH
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .. , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1398/AHD/2009 ( & ' & ' & ' & ' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) 34, SANKALP SOCIETY B/H.ST.XAVIERS SCHOOL GHOD DOD ROAD SURAT & & & & / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3) SURAT ( '# ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAEHD 2937 H ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEHUL R.SHAH ,-(+ / . ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P.VERMA, SR.D.R. &0 / # / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 12/12/12 12' / # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.12 '3 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 16/03/2009 PASS ED FOR A.Y. 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKIN G ADDITION ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - OF RS.10,35,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED NON-GENUINE GIFT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 20.12.2007 WERE THAT THE AS SESSEE-HUF HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF GIFT OF RS.10,35,000/- FROM ONE SH RI AMIT M.AMIN, STATED TO BE BROTHER OF THE KARTA OF THE HUF. THE ASSESSEE-HUF IS IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMODITY BROKING. AN ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BY FURNISHING BANK STATEMENT, GIFT-DEED, IDENTITY, ETC. OF THE DONOR. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: SIR, AMIT MAHESHBHAI AMIN, IS AN ELDER BROTHER OF DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN, WHO IS RESIDING AT CHICAGO, U.S.A. SINCE MORE THAN 5 YEARS AND HAS GIFTED AMOUNT TO DEEPAK AMIN, HIS WIFE SWETA AMIN AND HIS SON ARYA AMIN FROM HIS NRE SAVIN GS ACCOUNT OUT OF HIS INCOME EARNED AT CHICAGO, U.S.A. ENCLOSE D COPY OF PASS PORT AND BANK STATEMENT (NRE ACCOUNT) OF AMIT MAHES HBHAI AMIN FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 2.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISMISSED THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (I) ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI AMIT M AHESHBHAI AMIN MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, SUR AT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DONOR HAS CREDITED VARIOUS SUMS ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED ON THE SA ME DAY OR JUST A DAY AFTER THE ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED. FOR INSTANCE, ON 23.02.2004 A SUM OF RS.4,51,600/- WAS CREDITED A ND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED ON THE SAME. AGAIN ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2004 RS.7,85,9810/- WAS CREDITED AND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER A MONTH ON 07.1 0.2004, AMOUNT OF RS.25,17,305/- WAS CREDITED AND THE SAME WAS ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - TRANSFERRED TO FAMILY MEMBERS ON 7 TH AND 8 TH OF OCTOBER 2004. AGAIN ON 01.12.2004, I.E. AFTER TWO MONTHS A SUM OF RS.6,65,262/- WAS CREDITED AND SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 15.12.2004, RS.17,64,800 /- WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT AND ON 18.12.2004, RS.5 LAC S WAS TRANSFERRED TO JAGDISHBHAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT S UBMITTED BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONOR AFTER 22.12.2004. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE, SUMMARIZING THE CREDITS AND TRANSFER OF SAID CREDITS TO FAMILY MEMBER IS THAT THE DONOR HAS CREDITED ITS ACCOUNT BY RS.61,84,889/- AND OUT OF SAID SUM AROUND RS.50 LACS WERE TRANSFERRED TO VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. OUT OF WHICH, RS.10,35,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS GI FT. IN A SHORT PERIOD OF 12 MOTHS THE DONOR HAS TRANSFERRED SUM OF RS.50 LACS (APROX.) WHICH IS THREE TIMES OF HIS ANN UAL INCOME, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN NORMAL COURSE. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A CERTIFICFATE FROM L.A. TAN, CENTERVEILLE, WHEREIN ANNUAL INCOME OF THE DONOR HA S BEEN SHOWN AT AROUND RS.17 LACS PER ANNUM. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THAT CERTIFICATE THAT THE DONOR IS EARNING THE S AID AMOUNT FROM JANUARY 2004. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF ALLEGED GIFT IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 2004. ACCORDINGLY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR IN VIEW OF ABOVE CERTIFICATE IS NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT TO ALLOW GIF T OF RS.10,35,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. (III) MOREOVER, ON PERUSAL OF BANK CERTIFICATE WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE STATE THAT AVERAGE BALANC E OF DONOR IS AROUND RS.6 LACS TO RS.7 LACS. AGAIN IN V IEW OF ABOVE, THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR TO MAKE SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF GIFTS IS NOT PROVED GENUINE. 2.2. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED GIFT AND TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS), IT WAS AGAIN EXPLAINED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - 1. 'IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE GIFT OFRS.10.35 L ACS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM SHRI AMIT M. AMIN. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT DONOR IS THE BROTHER OF KARTA OF ASSESSEE WHO IS N.R.I RESIDING IN U.S.A SINCE LA ST MORE THAN 5 YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBELIEVED THAT THE GENU INE OF GIFT MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT DONOR HAS TRANSFERRED 61,84,889/- IN HI S N.R.E A/C MAINTAINED WITH OBC BANK, SURAT AND OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, SU M OFRS.50 LACS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. ON THIS GROUND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISBELIEVED THE GENUINENESS OF GIFTS OF RS.10.35 LACS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM HIS BROTHER. IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS SU BMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS O F GIFT RECEIVED BY IT. THESE EVIDENCES ARE COPY OF BANK A/C OF DONOR FROM WHERE GIFT IS RECEIVED, CONFIRMATION OF GIFT, CERTIFICATES RELATING TO AVER AGE BANK BALANCES OF DONOR, EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES, PASS PORT ETC. ON P ERUSAL OF THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AVERAGE BANK BALANCE CERTIFIED BY BANKING AUTHORITY COMES TO RS. 6-7 LACS. FURTHER IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM TH E CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY EMPLOYER OF THE DONOR (L.A TANCENTER VILLA) THAT TH E ANNUAL INCOME OF DONOR IS MORE THAN RS. 17 LACS PER ANNUM. NOT ONLY ON THIS IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HAT DONOR IS WELL- SETTLED IN U.S.A AND HIS WIFE IS ALSO EARNING SUBST ANTIAL INCOME. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTIFICATE OF THE EMPLOYER OF DONOR' WI FE WHERE FROM IT IS EVIDENT THAT SHE IS ALSO EARNING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME. THE DO NOR IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX & HAS FILED RETURNS OF INCOME ABROAD DISCLOSING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS DONOR CANNOT BE REG ARDED AS PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO GIVE GIFT OFRS.10. 35 LACS TO ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE GIFT IS RECEIVED THROUGH MORE TH AN ONE CHEQUE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GIFT IS NOT GENUINE. THIS IS MORE SO BECAUSE BOTH THE DONOR AND DONEE HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO BRING EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH I NDICATES THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS NOT RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF GIFT BUT ON ACCOUNT OF SOME HAWALA TRANSACTION OR THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT DONOR HAS TRANSFERRED CERTAIN AMOUNT TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GIFT REC EIVED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT GENUINE AS IT IS ALREADY EXPLAINED ABOVE THAT DONOR IS WELL SETTLED IN U.S. A AND HIS FAMILY IS EARNING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME ABROAD . HENCE, THE CAPACITY OF DONOR TO GIVE GIFT TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS INCLU DING ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE B ASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH SUP PORTS THE PRESUMPTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE I. T ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF HARD ROCK OF FACTS AND EVIDE NCES AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN THE INSTANT C ASE, ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY PROVED IDENTITY & CAPACITY OF THE DONOR AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF GIFT ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - TRANSACTION. HENCE, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFI CER IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON CIT V S. PADAM SINGH CHOUHAN 3 DTR 190, ITO VS. DHARAM VIR TULI 81 TTJ 1 028 (CHD.), NARINDER KUMAR SEKHRI VS. ACIT 81 TTJ 1036 (ANR.) A ND ACIT VS. MANOJ KUMAR SEKHRI 86 TTJ 510. 3.2. HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT THE DONOR HAD CLAIMED TO BE EARNING AND INCOME OF AROUND RS.17 LA CS PER ANNNUM BUT MAINTAINED AVERAGE BANK BALANCE OF RS.6 TO 7 LACS. PRIMA-FACIE THOSE FACTS REMAINED UNCHALLENGED. FURTHER, LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) HAS OPINED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE FUL L YEAR AND THERE WAS A CONFUSION ABOUT THE AVERAGE BALANCE FIGURE IN DOLLA RS. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT ONLY XEROX-COPY WAS MADE AVAILABLE. LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO DISBELIEVED THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE OF WIFE BEING GIVEN ON A PLAIN-PAPER AND NOT ON A LETTER-HEAD. HE HAS MENTI ONED THAT EVEN IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE DONOR WAS WELL SETTLED ABROAD, YET THE CAPACITY TO GIVE A GIFT OF RS.50 LACS TO HIS FAMILY MEMBERS SEEMED TO BE UNLIKELY IN THE CONTEXT OF PRE PONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IN HIS OPINION, GIFTS ARE GEN ERALLY RECIPROCAL AND MADE CERTAIN OCCASIONS, SUCH AS BIRTHDAYS, ANNIVERS ARIES, ETC. IN THE RESULT, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AFF IRMED. BEING AGGRIEVED, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LD.AR MR.MEHUL R .SHAH APPEARED AND FURNISHED A COMPILATION CONTAINING THE DOCUMENT S AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - 1. BANK STATEMENT OF AMIT M.AMIN & SWEJAL A.AMIN FR OM NATIONAL CITY BANK FOR THE PERIOD 30.08.03 TO 26.10 .03 2. NRE BANK STATEMENT OF AMIT M.AMIT FROM ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE FOR THE PERIOD 18.11.03 TO 04.03.06 3. CERTIFICATE FROM ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE 4. EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE OF SWEJAL A.AMIN 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF JOINT RETURN OF INCOME OF AMI T M.AMIN & SWEJAL A.AMIN FOR YEAR 2005/2004/2003 6. EVIDENCE FOR LOAN FROM MUTUAL BANK BY AMIT M.AMI N & SWEJAL A.AMIN 7. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CREDIT IN BANK ACCOUNT OF NATIONAL CITY BANK AMOUNTING TO 22,000$ & 1,019$ 4.1. LD.AR HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE PHOTOCOPIES OF TH E CHEQUES ISSUED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON CIT VS. KULWANT INDUSTRIES R EPORTED AT 311 ITR 377 (P&H). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.SR.DR MR.Y.P.VERMA APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANC E ON (I) TIRATH RAM GUPTA VS. CIT - 177 TAXMAN 294 (P&H), (II) SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) AND (III) CIT VS. P.MOHANAKALA 2 91 ITR 278 (SC). 6. PARTIES HEARD. CASE RECORDS PERUSED. EVIDENCES PLACED IN THE COMPILATION EXAMINED. CASE LAWS STUDIED. UNDISPTU ED FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE DONOR NAMELY MR.AMIT M.AMIN IS THE BROTHER OF THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DONOR IS STATED TO BE RESIDING IN CH ICAGO USA SINCE PAST MORE THAN FIVE YEARS FROM THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE IMPUGNED GIFT WAS MADE OUT OF THE NRE SAVING ACCOUN T. IN THE COMPILATION, THE SAID BANK STATEMENT NAMELY NATIONA L CITY BANK IS PLACED ON RECORD. THROUGH THE ENTRIES AVAILABLE IN THE SAID BANK ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - STATEMENT, LD.AR HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DONOR HA D SUFFICIENT DEPOSITS ON SEVERAL DATES WHICH WERE RECEIVED AS SALARY FROM HIS EMPLOYER. MEANING THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOU RCE OF INCOME OF THE DONOR. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENT HAS ALSO REVEAL ED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT WAS DIRECTLY MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL B Y DEBITING THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT SITUATED OUT OF THE COUNTRY THE GIFTED AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED THROUGH WIRE-TRANSF ER TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, SURAT HELD AS NRE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. ON THOSE VERY DATES, THE IMPUGNED AM OUNTS WERE CREDITED IN THE NRE ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, A CER TIFICATE OF THE MANGER OF THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, SURAT HAS ALSO BE EN PLACED ON RECORD ON WHICH HE CERTIFIED THAT MR.AMIT M.AMIN WAS HVIAN G NRE ACCOUNT WITH HIS BANK AND THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTIONS WERE CRE DITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED A SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE WIFE OF THE DONOR. THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE INCOME OF THE WIFE OF THE DONOR WAS THAT THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS WERE FILED AT US CONTAIN THE SOURCE OF INC OME JOINTLY BY HUSBAND AND WIFE. CORRESPONDING EVIDENCES FILED WITH THE U S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE HAS ALSO BEE PL ACED ON RECORD. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES, NOW WE HAVE TO EXAMIN E THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE RELATIONSHIP OF T HE DONOR, THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR, THE EXACT NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION A ND THE CORRECT IDENTITY OF THE DONOR AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS QUESTION WAS EXAMINED BY HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KULWANT INDUSTRIES AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE D ONOR WAS THE REAL MATERNAL UNCLE OF THE DONEE AND THE GIFT HAD BEEN M ADE FROM THE NRE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE DONOR. THE AMOUNT WAS RE MITTED VIDE FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSFER AND THE GIFT WAS DULY ACCEPTED. SINCE THE IDENTITY OF ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - THE DONOR WAS HELD TO BE ESTABLISHED AND SINCE THE GIFT WAS FOUND TO BE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE BY BANKING CHANNEL, THEREFORE I T WAS HELD THAT THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF GIFTS AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR.R.S.GUPTA REPORTED AT [1 987]165 ITR 36 AND SONIA BHATIA VS. STATE OF UP (AIR 1981 SUPREME COUR T 1274) STOOD SATISFIED. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ING REDIENTS OF THE GIFT WERE SATISFIED WHICH MUST NOT BE REPLACED BY PRESUMPTION AND CIRCUMSTANCE, THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T THE GIFT WAS GENUINE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND THE EVIDENCES DULY CORROBORATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT A GENUINE GIFT WAS MADE BY HIS BROTHER RESIDING OUT OF COUNTRY HAS TO BE UNDOUBTEDLY ACCEPTED. AS FAR AS THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD.D R OF SUMATI DAYAL (SUPRA) AND P.MOHANAKALA (SUPRA) ARE CONCERNED, THE FACTS WERE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE DOUBTFUL AND GIFTS WERE NOT REAL IN NATURE. THOSE DECISIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTA NCES OF VERY THOSE CASES. BECAUSE OF THE DOUBTFUL NATURE OF THE TRANS ACTION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE SUMS WERE FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AN ADVERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN. NEVER THELESS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO S USPECT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. MERELY ON SURMISES , THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT TRANSACTION MUST NOT BE DISMISSED AS HELD IN THE CASE LAWS CITED SUPRA FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT. 7. IN THE RESULT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECED ENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE, WE HEREBY ACCEPT T HE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THIS GROUND. ITA NO. 1398/AHD/2009 DEEPAK MAHESHBHAI AMIN (HUF) VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) '# ( T.R. MEENA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 12 /2012 ..&, .&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4' '3 / ,4 5'4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-V, SURAT 5. 49: ,& , , / LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; <0 / GUARD FILE. '3& '3& '3& '3& / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION DATED 19.12.12.(DICTATION-PAD 12 PAGES ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 20.12.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 21.12.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.12.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER