2. We have heard the parties. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee received 33.7 bigha of agriculture land from Smt. Navita Gupta, wife of Shri Ravi Kumar Gupta of Jaipur. The rights on this land were relinquished by Smt. Gupta without any consideration and the same was registered on 25-10-2004 with the Sub-Registrar who valued the land at Rs. 40,80,380 for valuation of stamp duty. The land was not shown in the balance sheet by the assessee and the reason given was that as the land was received as a capital asset on relinquishment of rights, the same was not shown in the balance sheet. It was stated that Sh. Ravi Kumar Gupta, husband of the donor is a close friend of Sh. Kushal Chand Bader, father of the assessee. Sh. Ravi Kumar Gupta and Shri Kushal Chand Bader are directors in M/s. Arihant Jewels Limited. As the relinquishment of right over the agricultural land by Smt. Navita Gupta was considered as a gift, the Assessing Officer applied provisions of section 56(2)(v). The section is reproduced below :—

"Where any sum of money exceeding twenty five thousand rupees is received without consideration by an individual or a HUF from any person on or after 1-9-2004, the whole of such sum will be considered as income from other source."

The Assessing Officer interpreted the word "money" by taking support from Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and held that the words "sum of money" as given in section 56 could not be restricted to hard cash and it should be read in a broader sense because if it was restricted to hard cash the purpose of legislation would be defeated. The Assessing Officer with these findings applied provisions of section 56(2)(v) and value of Rs. 40,80,380 was treated as income from other source. The Assessing Officer also held the gift received by the assessee as non-genuine and for this he gave his finding which is summarized below :—

(i)There is no relationship between the donor and donee as both are from different caste or religion.

(ii)As affirmed by the assessee, husband of the donor and father of the donee are directors in one company which proves that both the families have business relationship. Under the circumstances it was beyond imagination that under consideration was not passed on transfer of the agriculture land.

(iii)From the statement recorded of Smt. Navita Gupta some points state emerges and Assessing Officer concluded that statement of affairs were not enclosed with the return of income by the donor Smt. Navita Gupta. The investment in two properties by her were Rs. 1,26,000 only. She has been filing return showing interest income only. From the copy of bank statement filed by Smt. Navita Gupta for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2006 it appears that the maximum balance in her account was Rs. 5,22,092 and most of the time credit balance was below Rs. 1 lakh. That the land was purchased on the advice of Sh. Kushal Chand Bader as admitted by Smt. Navita Gupta and investment of Rs. 90,000 was made to purchase this agriculture land. The reason given by her to make a gift of agriculture land after 20 years of purchase when her own son was around 20 years old was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also observed that there was no occasion for making such gift. There was neither any marriage nor other occasion which can justify the gift. From the financial statement one can notice that the value of asset side is not more than Rs. 2 lakhs and, therefore, Smt. Navita Gupta did not have any capacity. She is also having a son to inherit the property whereas such a huge property was gifte