TANAJI TULSHIRAM BABAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-5, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 559/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 October 2023AY 2017-185 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the Rs. 1 crore was not reflected as a loan in the assessee's balance sheet and was part of his capital account. The Tribunal also declined to entertain additional grounds as the necessary facts were not on record.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 1 crore from his HUF, which was added to his income by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued it was a loan, not a gift, and sought to raise additional grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the sum received from HUF is taxable as income under Section 56(2)(vii) and whether additional grounds can be entertained by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii),Section 10(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 09.10.2023Pronounced: 12.10.2023

Date of Hearing : 09.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050794576(1), dated 15.03.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1951 (the

2 I.T..A.No.559/PUN./2023 Act) it be held that addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the Id. AO and further upheld by the First Appellate Authority is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The addition so made shall be deleted. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 2. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. Learned counsel next referred to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action adding the amount in question of Rs.1 crore as under :

3 I.T..A.No.559/PUN./2023

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that the first and foremost issue that arises before us is regarding correctness of the learned lower authorities action treating the impugned sum of Rs.1 crore received by the assessee from his eponymous HUF as taxable u/sec.56(2)(vii) of the Act. Learned counsel is fair enough in submitting that the Assessing Officer had gone by Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO [2018] 98 taxmann.com 144 (Ahmedabad-Tribunal) that an “HUF” does not come within exemption category of relatives in sec.56(2)(vii) Explanation clause (e)(i)(A) to (G). Learned counsel next submits that although this tribunal’s various decisions have also decided the issue against the department,

4 I.T..A.No.559/PUN./2023 the assessee does not wish to press for the same as he had not received any gift so as to be taxed under the preceding statutory provision.

4.1. The assessee’s next submission is that the impugned sum of Rs.1 crore represents unsecured loans by the assessee from the foregoing HUF and therefore, it could hardly be taxed as a gift not falling in the preceding exemption clauses. We find no substance in the assessee’s instant latter submission as well once it is noticed from his balance-sheet [for the relevant accounting period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017] at page-50 comprising of his liabilities by way of unsecured loan wherein this sum in dispute at Rs.1 crore has nowhere been included. The said sum rather forms part of the assessee’s capital account only. We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)'s findings in the preceding paragraphs on this latter account as well.

5.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel sought to raise an additional argument that the impugned sum deserves to be treated as exempted in assessee’s hands u/sec.10(2) of the Act. He sought to invite our attention to the assessee’s additional evidence petition dated 31.03.2023 accompanied by a detailed paper book running into 93 pages. His case therefore, is that we ought to entertain this additional ground for the purpose of verifying the necessary facts. We are afraid

5 I.T..A.No.559/PUN./2023 that such a course of action of afresh factual verification regarding an assessee’s additional ground/submissions raised before the tribunal is no more available in light of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC); as considered in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., vs. DCIT [2012] 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) (SB) holding that we can very well entertain such an additional ground/arguments going to the root of the matter provided all the relevant facts already form part of record. We thus decline the assessee’s instant third/last argument as well. No other ground or argument has been raised before us.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

All 365 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →