BEENA SHAH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD(28)-1, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee received a cash gift of Rs.2 lakhs from her sister-in-law, which falls under the exempt category of relatives under section 56(2) of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs.2 lakhs was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act. The lower authorities treated cash deposits of Rs.3.20 lakhs as unexplained, after giving credit for Rs.1.20 lakhs from past sales.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposit treated as unexplained income by the lower authorities was indeed a gift from a relative, exempt under Section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 05.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 5, Mumbai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1072151745(1), dated 14.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It is noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.3.20 lakhs as unexplained to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs thereby giving credit of her past sales of Rs.1.20 lakhs in assessment order dated 3rd December, 2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting their respective stands. The assessee’s case all along is that she had in fact received a cash gift from her sister-in-law Ms. Prabha Shah who had withdrawn the corresponding amount of Rs.2 lakhs from her bank account which was deposited in her account as a gift since covered under the exempt category of relative u/s 56(2) of the Act. That being the case, I hereby see no merit in the impugned addition of Rs.2 lakhs. Deleted accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026