Shweta Goyal (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 87 ITR 57 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Cash deposited in bank account-Remand report-Once the AO has examined the document so produced by the assessee and recorded his satisfaction regarding the identity of the donors, genuineness of the gifts and sources of such gifts, the assessee has discharged the necessary onus cast on her and the addition directed to be deleted.

Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the  assessee had discharged initial onus placed on her with the production of gift deed and identity of the donors and the genuineness of the transaction of gift on marriage.  The ITAT further held that the document is to be read as a whole and it is not open to the authorities to accept the particular content and to reject the other, to suit its purpose. The Hon’ble ITAT has also referred the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and in the case of Behari Lal Ram Charan v. ITO (1981) AIR 1585 as also the decision on the similar lines rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Silver Streak Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 418 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohanlal Gupta v. CIT (1958) 33 ITR 786 (All) (HC). The Hon’ble ITAT held that once the AO has examined the documents so produced i.e. the original affidavits of the donors and their custodian and recorded his satisfaction regarding the identity of the donors, the genuineness of the gift and the source of such gift, the assessee has discharged the necessary onus cast on her and accordingly, the addition of Rs.5,00,000/-is directed to be deleted. (AY. 2010-11)