Dr. V. Rama devi, Karimnagar V. ACIT, Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 240/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66374 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GNANA PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 DR. V. RAMA DEVI, APPELLANT KARIMNAGAR VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDEN T WARANGAL. (PAN/GIR NO. V-2081) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GNANA PRAKASH DATE OF HEARING : 25/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/10/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 18/11/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL BY TWO DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE FILED CONDONATION PETITION FOR THE SAID DELAY. SINCE WE HAVE CONVINCED WITH REASONS PUT-FORTH BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID DELAY, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 2 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM PROFESSION AS A DOCTOR. SHE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON 20/11/2003 SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 2,63,743/-. SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN HER PREMISES ON 0 3/11/2004. CONSEQUENT TO SUCH SEARCH, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S 153A OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE AO CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A REVISED R ETURN OF INCOME ON 31/08/2005 SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 18,95,903/-. 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF LOAN OF RS. 1,10,000/ - FROM ONE A. RAJAMANGA REDDY. ON QUERIES RAISED BY HER FOR FURNI SHING THE DETAILS OF THE SAID LOAN AND TO PROVE GENUINENESS O F THAT LOAN, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12/07/006 HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PERSON IS HER NEPHEW, WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BANK INTEREST. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD TAKEN LOAN O F RS. 1,10,000/- FROM HIM ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING FY 2002-03. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT HE IS ON THE ROLLS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMEN T FOR MANY YEARS AND DERIVED RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, BESI DES INTEREST INCOME. HOWEVER, STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID CREDITOR, HIS CRE DITWORTHINESS AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTION, THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,10,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, TR EATING AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF TWO G IFTS OF RS. 4,00,000/- AND RS. 5,00,000/- FROM ONE SRI G. BHOOP AL REDDY AND 3 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI SRI N KISTA REDDY RESPECTIVELY. ON BEING ASKED BY T HE AO TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SUCH GIFTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID DO NORS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED TWO CASH GIFTS OF RS. 2,00,000/- EACH ON 12/08/2002FROM SRI G. BHOOPAL RE DDY, WHO IS HER COUSIN BROTHER AND WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF GIFT DECLARATION FOR THE SAME. 6. AS REGARDS THE OTHER GIFT OF RS. 5,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED SUCH AMOUNT THROUGH CH EQUE ON 04/09/2002 FROM SRI N. KISTA REDDY, WHO IS HER BROT HER-IN-LAW. IT WAS STATED THAT HE IS A LANDLORD AND HAS AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. SHE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE GIFT DECLARATION FOR T HE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH SUCH S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON FURTHER QUERIES RAISED BY HER IN THAT REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED RS. 4, 00,000/- VIDE TWO DDS OF RS. 2,00,000/- EACH FROM SRI G. BHOOPAL REDDY AND THE SAME WERE DEPOSITED IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IN SATHAVAHANA GRAMINA BANK, KARIMNAGAR. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT T HE OTHER GIFT OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM HER COUSIN SRI N. KISTA REDDY, THROUGH DD, AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN HER SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT WITH THAT BANK IN KARIMNAGAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE SAID GIFTS WERE DEPOSITED BY HER. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE. STATING THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED TH E COPIES OF RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNTS FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AND SHE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO DONORS AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH TRANSACTIONS AS GENUINE AND THUS, ADDED THE SAID TWO AMOUNTS, TO TALING TO RS. 4 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI 9,00,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 7. WITH BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 29,06,903/- VID E HER ORDER DATED 31/10/2006 PASSED U/S 153 R.W.S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 9. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALREADY FURNISHED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED I N ANDHRA BANK, NIZAMABAD, IN RESPECT OF SRI BHOOPAL REDDY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A. RAJAMANGA REDDY, WAS A MINOR UP T O THE AY 2001-02. HIS INCOME UP TO THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS CLUBBED WITH THE INCOME OF HIS MOTHER SMT. A. SUNANDA. AFTER BEC OMING MAJOR, HIS INCOME WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT FOR THE AYS. 200 2-03 AND 2003- 04 AND HENCE, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING SUCH PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURN ISHED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET ETC., IN RESPECT OF SRI A. RAJAMANGA REDDY, WHO IS IN USA. 10. THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER, WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO B Y THE THEN CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD VIDE LETTER DATED 29/08/2007. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO WHILE DISCUSSING THE FACTUAL POSITION IN REGARD TO SUCH GIFTS SHOWN IN THE NAMES OF DIFFERENT PERSONS, SUB MITTED THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT HAD BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS IMP UGNED ORDER AT 5 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI PARA 5.2. FURTHER, THE JCIT, KARIMNAGAR IN HIS FORW ARDING LETTER HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TWO GIFTS OF RS. 4,00,000/- AND RS. 5,00,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE . 11. COPIES OF BOTH THE SAID REPORTS OF THE AO AND T HE JCIT, KARIMNAGAR RANGE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING COMMENTS. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE G IFT AMOUNT OF RS. 4,00,000/- SHOWN FROM SRI G. BHOOPAL REDDY, SUBMIT TED THAT THE SAID GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM HER COUSIN BROTHER WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE GIFT WAS R ECEIVED THROUGH DD ON 12/08/2002 AND THE SAME WAS CREDITED TO THE A SSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF GIFT DECLARATION FOR THE SAME. REFERRING TO THE SAID REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD SUSPECTED THE SOURCE OF GIFT IN THE CASE OF THE SAID DONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE GIFT AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- SHOWN FORM SRI N. KISTA RE DDY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM HER COUSIN BROTHER WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. IT WAS STATED THAT SUCH GIFT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH DD ON 04/09/200 2 AND THE SAME WAS CREDITED TO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF GIFT DECLARATION FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN ALREADY FILED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. 12. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT BY FURNISHING SUCH DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THOSE GIFTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS WHICH LAY ON HIM. IN THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE AO, IS BASED ON MERE SUSPICION & SURMISES. STA TING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS AND HAD 6 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI DISCHARGED HER BURDEN BY GIVING DETAILS OF BANK ACC OUNT IN WHICH THOSE GIFT AMOUNTS WERE CREDITED, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT SRI BHOOPAL REDDY WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR RE-EXA MINATION, BUT SRI N. KISTA REDDY COULD NOT APPEAR AS HE WAS DEAD. 13. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE AO UPHELD T HE ACTION OF THE AO BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID GIFT TRANSACTIONS C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND HENCE, THE SAID TWO AMOUNTS OF RS. 4 ,00,000/- AND RS. 5,00,000/- ARE TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS OF TH E SAID TWO AMOUNTS MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT, ARE JUSTI FIED AND HENCE, THE TWO ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED TWO GIFTS DURING THE FY R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 OF RS. 4,00,000/- AND RS. 5 ,00,000/- FROM SRI G. BHOOPAL REDDY AND SRI N. KISTA REDDY RE SPECTIVELY. THESE GIFTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND ADDED B ACK AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND IN T HE APPEAL THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE CIT(A) IS NOT CO RRECT IN CONFIRMING THE GIFTS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2. THE CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE LOAN TAKEN OF RS. 1,10,000/- FROM A. RAJMANGA REDDY. 3. THE APPELLANT BEGS TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM AND LEARNED DR SHRI K. GNANA PRAKASH. AS R EGARDS THE 7 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI A. RAJAMANGA REDDY, VIDE QUEST IONNAIRE DATED 13/06/2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE D ETAILS, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. DATE OF LOAN, 2. PURPOSE OF LOAN 3. COPY OF RELEVANT LOAN AGREEMENT 4. RATE OF INTEREST AGREED UPON 5. CURRENT OUTSTANDING AMOUNT 6. MODE OF RECEIPT, 7. INTEREST PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR, AND 8. TDS THEREUPON 16. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, ON 12/07/2006, THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI A. RAJAMANGA REDDY IS HER NEPHE W HAVING HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AD BANK INTEREST INCOME AND T HAT SHE HAD TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 1,10,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES DUR ING THE FY 2002- 03. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF HE ARING THE DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ALSO P OINTED OUT THAT SHRI A. RAJAMANGA REDDY HAS BEEN GETTING RENTAL INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD, FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND ALSO EARNING OTHER INTEREST INCOME. IT WA S FURTHER STATED THAT COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FILED W ITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAME CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE KA RIMNAGAR INCOME-TAX OFFFICE WHEREIN HE HAS BEEN ASSESSED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE AS SESSEE SATISFIED THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE TRANSACTION APPEARS TO BE GENUINE AND HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 1, 10,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI A. RAJAMANGA REDDY, IS DELETED. 8 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI 17. WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER TWO CASH CREDITS, NAM ELY, RS. 4,00,000/- FROM G. BHOOPAL REDDY AND RS. 5,00,000/- FROM N. KISTA REDDY, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN QUESTIONED ON 13/06/20 06 AND THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED THE CASH GIFTS FROM G. BHOOPAL REDDY, WHO WAS HER COUSIN BROTHER H AVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ENCLOSED COPIES OF GIFT DEC LARATION BEFORE THE AO. WITH RESPECT TO N. KISTA REDDY, THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT HE WAS HER BROTHER-IN-LAW AND ALSO LANDLORD HAVING AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AND HAD GIVEN GIFT OF RS. 5,00,000/- BY CHEQUE ON 0 4/09/2002 AND SHE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE GIFT DECLARATION BEFORE TH E AO. 18. WE FIND THAT THE JCIT, KARIMNAGAR RANGE, IN HIS FORWARDING LETTER, WHILE BRIEFLY REFERRING TO THE FACTUAL POSI TION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT , SUBMITTED THAT THOSE TWO GIFTS OF RS. 4,00,000/- AND RS. 5,00 ,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. THE CON TENTS IN HIS LETTER ARE AS UNDER:- I) THE HONBLE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD WANTED THOROUG H VERIFICATION ON THE ISSUE OF GENUINITY OF GIFTS REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SRI B. BHOOPAL REDDY RS. 4 LAKHS AND SRI N. KISTA REDDY RS. 5 LAKHS. THE AO HAS VERIFIED AND HA S GIVEN DETAILED DESCRIPTION ON THE GIFTS PURPORTEDLY TO HA VE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERSONS TO THE ASSESSE E. IN ADDITION TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO, IT IS TO BRING TO THE KIND NOTICE OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD THAT W ITH REGARD TO THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM SRI B. BHOOPAL REDDY FOR RS. 4 LAKHS, THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF ANDHRA BANK INDICATE THAT THERE IS CASH DEPOSITS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF GIFT AND ALSO THE SOURCE FOR SUCH CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT FURNISHED. II) WITH REGARD TO THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI N. K ISTA REDDY FOR RS. 5 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SRI N. KISTA REDDY HAD GIVEN A 9 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI GIFT OF RS. 5.00 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE ON 04/09/200 2 AND HAS MERELY ENCLOSED GIFT DECLARATION WITHOUT FURNISHING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR. EVEN WHILE FILING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH GIFT OF RS. 5 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED. THUS, THERE IS CONTRADICTORY FACT FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO DATE OF GIFT AND ALSO IN T HE ABSENCE OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SRI N. KISTA REDDY AND IN THE ABSEN CE OF EVIDENCE OF SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE AN DHRA BANK BY SRI BHOOPAL REDDY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO ACCEPT THE GIFTS AS GENUINE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. 19. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT THOUGH IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, CRE DITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. MOHANAKALA, 291 ITR 278, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT I N CASE WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE E ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SUMS FOUND CREDI TED IN THE BOOKS IS NOT SATISFACTORY THERE IS, PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE, VIZ. THE RECEIPT OF MONEY. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME, AND, IF HE FAILS TO REBUT IT, IT CAN BE HELD AGAINST THE AS SESSEE THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE.' IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT MERE IDENTITY OF THE DONO R AND SHOWING MOVEMENT OF GIFT AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT DONOR HAD MEANS AND GIFT WAS GENUINE IN THE CASE WHERE THE DONOR IS LESS WEALTHIER, THE GIFT IS TO B E TREATED AS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES EVEN THOUGH THE DONOR CONFIRMS THE GIFT. 20. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE, [1971 ] 82 ITR 540, THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES H AVE TO BE CONSIDERED TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE GIFTS MADE BY THE RELAT IVES AND THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABI LITIES. 10 ITA NO. 240/HYD/2012 DR. V. RAMADEVI 21. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE SAID COUR TS, IN OUR OPINION THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN P ROBABILITIES AND IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT AN AGRICULTURIST WHO IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE BLOOD RELATIVE MAKES A GIFT OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS AND 5 LAKHS , WHICH ARE HUGE AMOUNTS TO A DOCTOR, WHO IS IN HIGHER STATUS AND WEALTHIER THAN THE DONORS. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE GIFTS OF RS. 4,00,000/- AND RS. 5,00 ,000/- RECEIVED FROM G. BHOOPAL REDDY AND N. KISTA REDDY RESPECTIVELY. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/10/2012. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAY ARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 19 TH OCTOBER, 2012 KV COPY TO:- 1) DR. V. RAMADEVI, 3-4-69, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, KARIM NAGAR 505 001. 2) THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1, KARIMNAGAR 505 001. 3) THE CIT (A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4) THE CIT-III, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.