IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1318/Del./2011 Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Mrs. Shakti Mitter, vs. ACIT, Central Cirle 7, C-29, Mayfair Gardens, New Delhi Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. (PAN: AQZPM 2098 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Satyam Sethi, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. B. Ramanjaneyula, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 16.08.2016 Date of pronouncement : 23 .09.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is appeal filed by assessee against order of ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 28.01.2011 for assessment year 2008-09 on following grounds : 1. That on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi [briefly 'the CIT(A)'] has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,12,220/- being gift of foreign currency received from non resident sister. 2. That on facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) having accepted that amount of Euro 2000 was received by Appellant from her nonresident sister erred in upholding addition 2 ITA No.1318/Del./2011 for reason that creditworthiness of donor was not proved. It was not appreciated that amount of gift was nominal. 3. That on facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that provision to section 56 of Act mandates that gift from blood relations do not represent income from other sources. 2. brief facts of case are that search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income-tax Act (in short Act ) was carried out in case of assessee on 21.09.2007. During course of search operation at residence of assessee, some foreign currency amounting to Pounds 3840, Euro 1900 and US Dollars 1035 was found. assessee was asked to furnish source of currency found. In response, husband of assessee Sh. Arun Mitter, submitted reply showing foreign currency in hands of all his family members including assessee as gift. assessee has shown sum of Euro 2000 as gift received from Smt. Anjali Talwar, sister- in-law of assessee residing at Muscat (Oman). However, no document was filed by assessee in support of her above submission except affidavit dated 14.11.2009 signed by Smt. Anjali Talwar. Assessing Officer noted that in case of gift, three conditions, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of donor and genuineness of transaction have to be satisfied. In response to query of Assessing Officer, only affidavit of donor was filed which proves identity of donor, as noted by Assessing Officer. 3 ITA No.1318/Del./2011 AO for want of satisfying other conditions, noted above, added entire foreign currency in hands of Sh. Arun Mitter and also added Euro 2000 equivalent to Rs.1,12,220/- (one Euro = Rs.56.11 as on 12.09.2007) in hands of assessee on protective basis. Aggrieved by order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) who upheld order of Assessing Officer vide impugned order. 3. ld. AR submitted that Assessing Officer has made addition merely on basis of suspicion. gift was not made by stranger. appellant received gift out of natural love and affection between close family relations. Moreover, gift was not for unreasonable amount. It is customary in Indian Society to give gifts to relatives and in present case, gift was given to blood relation and such gifts are recognized even by provisions of Act inasmuch as section 56 of Act recognizes such gifts. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve gift on alleged ground of creditworthiness of donor and genuineness of transaction. donor is NRI and living with her husband from last 10 years at Muscat (Oman). Therefore, their creditworthiness cannot be doubted for giving gift of such meager amount. affidavit of Mrs. Anjali Talwar dated 14.11.2009 duly certified by Consular Officer, Embassy of India, was filed with AO. 4 ITA No.1318/Del./2011 Besides, letter of donor was also addressed to Assessing officer, confirming gift of Euro 2000 to appellant. It is submitted that in foreign currency Euro 2000 is not substantial amount for person who is NRI living in Gulf Country for last 10 years and is kept in cash and no specific drawing from bank is required to be shown for NRI living abroad for such long duration. ld. AR relied on judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Kakkar, 324 ITR 231 and decision of coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Surajbhan Bajaj vs. ITO, 102 TTJ 665. 4. On other hand, ld. DR tried to justify orders of authorities below and submitted that authorities below have made good orders which do not require any interference, as creditworthiness of donor and genuineness of transaction has not been proved by assessee. 5. After hearing both parties and perusing materials available on record, we find that gift amount of Euro 2000 is meager amount for person who is NRI and residing abroad for last 10 years. Therefore, their creditworthiness cannot be doubted in peculiar facts of present case. donor has submitted affidavit which has been duly certified by Consular Officer, Embassy of India and letter addressed to Assessing 5 ITA No.1318/Del./2011 Officer affirming gift of Euro 2000 to assessee was also placed before AO. Copy of passport was also placed by assessee. It is also not in dispute that donor visited India in June/July, 2007. In Indian Society, it is not strange that NRI when visits to its country, usually give some gifts to its near and dear, as in instant case. In presence of all these facts and in totality of facts and circumstances of case, we find no justification to support order of ld. CIT(A) and contentions of assessee are found to have considerable merit. Accordingly, appeal of assessee deserves to be allowed. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 23.09.2016. Sd/- Sd/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (L.P. SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 23.09.2016 *aks/- Copy of order forwarded to: (1) appellant (2) respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Assistant. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Benches, New Delhi Shakti Mitter v. ACIT, Central Cirle–7, New Delhi