SHRI SHEO NARAYAN SINGH,DHANBAD vs. DCIT CIR-2, DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 180/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 July 20202 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the lower authorities. It was held that the donors were not covered under the exempt category of relatives as defined in Section 56(2)(VIII) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed gifts from relatives, but the lower authorities added the amounts under Section 56(2)(VII)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The donors were not considered relatives as defined in Section 56(2)(VIII).

What were the issues?

Whether the gifts received by the assessee were from relatives as defined under the Act, and if not, whether the addition under Section 56(2)(VII)(b) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(VII)(b),Section 56(2)(VIII)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “E” Court at KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

O R D E R PER BENCH (Oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Dhanbad’s order dated 23.03.2018 passed in case No.174/DHN/2014-15, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard Shri Devesh Poddar and Shri A.K. Mohanti, for the assessee and department; respectively.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making sec. 56(2)(VII)(b) addition of ₹32,05,000/-. He had claimed gifts of ₹2 lakh, ₹ 4 lakh, ₹6 lakh, ₹4 lakh, ₹7.75 lakh & ₹8.30 lakh from Shri Anand & Bipin Kumar Singh (first cousin) Manorma Singh, Pinki Singh, Poonam Singh (first cousin wives) and Sita Ram A.Y. 2012-13 Sheo Narayan Singh Vs. ACIT Cir-2, DHN Page 2 Singh (first cousin); respectively. Learned authorized representative fails to dispute that although the assessee has filed on record all the corresponding details of the so-called donor(s), the fact remains that none of them is covered under the exempt category of relatives defined in sec. 56(2)(VIII) of the Act as it has been elaborately discussed in the CIT(A)’s order. We make it clear that the assessee’s case right from the beginning was that on having received the corresponding gift(s) only. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s foregoing clinching reason and affirm the impugned addition(s) in assessee’s hands.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court at the close of hearing on Wednesday, 15th July, 2020 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद"य) ($या%यक सद"य) (Dr. A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member)

More judgments on Section 56(2)(VII)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(VII)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →