JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The revenue (sic.assessee) is aggrieved by an order dated 22-10-2007 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench T in ITA Nos. 4820/Del/2005; 4827/Del/2005; 4831/Del/2005; 3628/Del/2006 and 3629/Del/2006 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. According to the assessee, it is carrying on the business of a financial company and also has some agricultural income. IT returns were filed showing an income of Rs. 48,000 in the case of M/s Ashok Mahindru &Sons. The assessee had received a gift from a Swiss national by the name of Ms. Therese Morosini. The gifts received by the assessee and some others are as follows: (Rs.) Cheque No .(1) Mrs. Alka Mahindru 6,00,000 93758/14- .(2) Mrs. Sadhna Mahindru 6,00,000 93757/14- .(3) M/s Atul Mahindru & Sons 10,00,000 93756/14- .(4) Sh. R.K. Mehta 9,50,000 93755/14- .(5) Sh. Girish Kapur 2,50,000 93753/14- .(6) Mrs. Shamba Kapur 2,50,000 93752/14- .(7) Mr. R.K. Mehta 55,00,000 93759/14- 3. In addition to the above, the Swiss national appears to have given gifts to the tune of Rs. 69.50 lakhs to other persons by cheques drawn on the same date that is 14-9-2000. 4. According to all the three authorities below, the assessee was not able to explain the circumstances in which the gifts were received even though the documentation appears to have been meticulously prepared. The relationship that the assessee had with the donor and the creditworthiness of the donor were not established by the assessee. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that as long as relevant documents have been prepared evidencing the gift, the authorities under the Act ought to have accepted the contention of the assessee. 6. We are not in agreement with the view canvassed by learned Counsel for the reason that even though the documentation may be in order, if there is enough material to raise a very strong suspicion that there is something not quite right with the nature of the transaction, the authorities under the Act may reject the documents and require the assessee to show that the transaction is really one which is above board. On the fact of this case, all the three authorities have rejected the explanation of the assessee. 7. We are not convinced that the transaction is above board. On the fact of this case, all the three authorities have rejected the explanation of the assessee. 7. We are not convinced that the transaction is above board. We have in particular considered the quantum of the gifts, the fact that there is inadequate material to show the resources or finances of the Swiss national; there is no apparent reason for the assessee being showered with gifts by a person who is stated to be only a family friend and that the same family friend has showered gifts of an enormous amount on several other persons as well. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any perversity shown in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on the facts of this case. No substantial question of law arises in this regard. 9. Learned Counsel for the assessee says that there is another question involved in this appeal. Appeal dismissed against assessee