T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi dated 17.11.2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are as under:

"A. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.39,98,408/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2) (vi) when the amount received by the assessee was without consideration.

B. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.39,98,408/- when provisions of section 56 (2) (vi) were clearly applicable in the case of the assessee.

C. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in the deleting addition of Rs.39,98,408/- when the amount received was not from the relative (ex-spouse) of the assessee and hence falls in exceptions to charging of tax."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 23.07.2008 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,15,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny.

3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from the bank statement of assessee that there was a credit of Rs.39,98,408.60 equal into Rs.99,093.15US$. The assessee was asked to submit explanation in respect of aforesaid credit entry to which the assessee replied that the amount was received as alimony due from her husband over a period of time and in support the assessee filed confirmation from Dr. Paul Dax, a national of Germany and ex-husband who has stated as under:

"MS. Meenakshi Khanna is my ex-wife and that I have sent her US $ 99,093 during the month of August, 2007."

4. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee as to why not the amount received be added to the income of assessee as per provisions of section 56(2) (vi) of the Act. In response, assessee submitted her reply by letter dated 18.10.2010 stating as under:

"This is regarding the amount of 99,093 US $ received in our saving a/c from US. It is stated that the above said amount received from her ex-husband Dr. Paul Dax for which confirmation has been given earlier. This amount has been received as alimony from ex-husband as per divorce agreement in August 1990. It is also stated that assessee has never received any amount from her ex-husband earlier."

5. The Assessing Officer relying upon the provisions of section 56(2) (vi) held that the assessee was not covered under the definition of relative as provided in exceptions to section 56(2) (vi) and, therefore, held the amount received as income taxable under the provisions of section 56(2) (vi).

6. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) and submitted various submissions. The CIT (A) after going through the submissions of assessee deleted the addition by holding as under:

'The word consideration has not been defined under the Income Tax Act therefore we need to verify its meaning from the law which govern principles of contract. Consideration has been defined u/s 2(d) of Indian Contract Act which inter-alia reads:-

"That at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise."

In Currie v. Misa [1875] LR 10 EX-153 the consideration was defined as

"A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other."

This definition has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and compared with the definition given in section 2(d) of Contract Act and approved as being practically the same in Chidambara Iyer V. Renga Iyer (1966) 1 SCR 168.

Going by these definitions it cannot be said that the appellant received the money without consideration which is a prerequisite condition for invoking clause (vi) of sub-sect