SUNIL THOMAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/49/2015HC KeralaKLHC01025450201507 March 2017Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC18 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunil Thomas, filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, for the assessment year 2009-2010. The dispute concerns the assessment of ₹1,66,01,834/- as the assessee's income. The assessee had declared this amount as a gift from his brother, Sudeep Thomas, a Non-Resident Indian employed in Dubai. The Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the ITAT concurrently held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of the donor to advance the money, as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had provided bank transfer details from his brother's account but no further evidence regarding the donor's capacity or transaction genuineness.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the fact of receiving ₹1,66,01,834/- by bank transfer from the assessee's brother during the assessment year was not disputed. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 56(2). However, the proviso to Section 56(2) exempts sums received from relatives, but this exclusion is only available if the requirements of Section 68 are satisfied. Section 68 mandates that if a sum is credited in the assessee's books and the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation regarding its nature and source, it can be charged to income tax as the assessee's income. The Court found that while the identity of the donor was not disputed, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the donor's capacity to gift the amount. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished, as they did not dilute the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the donor's creditworthiness, which was the primary basis for the assessment in this case. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the orders of the Assessing Officer, the first appellate authority, and the Tribunal. The questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Department is legally justified in inquiring into and insisting the assessee to prove the source of the donor, when the assessee has discharged his primary burden of proving receipt of the subject amount as a gift from his brother (a relative) through banking channels, and whether the authorities below erred in their interpretation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the onus and burden of proof lie on the Department to probe and establish the source of the donor placed abroad, when the assessee has established receipt of the amount by way of gift from his brother (exempted under Section 56(2)) through banking channels? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below were justified in holding that a sum of ₹1,66,01,834/- constitutes the undisclosed income of the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the money was received as a gift from his brother, a Non-Resident Indian with substantial earnings, through banking channels from his Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank account. The assessee contended that once these facts were proved, the Assessing Officer should have accepted the explanation and exempted the amount under Section 56(2). The assessee relied on the judgments in Nemi Chand Kothari v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Value Capital Services Private Limited. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to prove the requirements of Section 68 of the Act despite various opportunities, and therefore, the amount cannot escape assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 56(2),Section 143(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUE AY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938 ITA.No. 49 of 2015 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 19/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 12-12-2014 ------- APPELLANT: ------------- SUNIL THOMAS KANJOOPARAMBIL BUILDING, CONVENT ROAD, KOCHI - 682035. PAN : ABRPT 6088M BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.) SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.2(1), RANGE -2, C.R. BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD. KOCHI - 682018. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, SRVH ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. R.

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No.49 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,634 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →