JAYSHREEBEN ROHITBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ROHITBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1406/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 April 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the gift received from the father-in-law, being a relative, through banking channels is not taxable under Section 68, especially when the donor has expired. However, additions from partnership firms were confirmed due to lack of supporting documentation.

What were the facts?

The assessee received foreign remittances which were treated as gifts. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that similar gifts from the same donor were deleted in her wife's case.

What were the issues?

Whether gifts received from a relative through banking channels can be added under Section 68 without further proof of donor's income, and whether additions from partnership firms are justified without proper documentation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 52(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member

ITA No: 1406/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Jayshreeben Rohitbhai The ITO Patel Legal Heir of Late Ward-5(2)(4), Rohitbhai Patel Vs Ahmedabad 9 Chinubhai Center, Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: ABIPP5606N (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Vijay Patel, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, CIT-DR

Date of hearing : 22-04-2026 Date of pronouncement : 24-04-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 19-06-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

I.T.A No. 1406/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 2 Mrs. Jayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel Legal heir of Late Rohitbhai Patel Vs. ITO

2.

The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: 1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in upholding the order dated 16.11.2019 passed u/s 148 r.w.s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in passing the impugned order 19.06.2025 in the name of dead person? 3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was right in re-opening the Assessment on fishing and roving inquiry? 4) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law and on facts in invoking provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the said provision is not applicable to receipt of GIFT? 5) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 91,24,142/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act disregarding the copy of gift deed as well as confirmation of accounts?

2.1. At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that this the very same issue of gift received by the assessee from his Father-in-Law, Shri Babubhai A. Patel in foreign currency/remittance on 17-12-2011 was deleted in assessee’s wife case namely Jashreeben Rohitbhai Patel vide order dated 04-02-2026 in ITA No. 1524/Ahd/2025. It was further explained that her father was residing abroad and expired on 31-03-2015 in Nairobi, Kenya.

3.

In the case assessee’s wife, Co-ordinate Bench deleted the addition of Rs. 51,32,442/- being gift received form her father late Shri Babubhai A. Patel.

4.

Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not controvent the above submissions of the assessee.

5.

We have perused the materials available on record and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench wherein similar gift of Rs.51,32,442/- made

I.T.A No. 1406/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 3 Mrs. Jayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel Legal heir of Late Rohitbhai Patel Vs. ITO

by Shri Babubhai A. Patel in foreign currency/remittance in the case of assessee’s wife, deleted the addition by observing as follows: “…8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is an individual who does not maintain any books of account. The alleged credit is reflected only in the bank statement. The assessee has claimed that the amount represents a gift received from her father. The relationship between the donor and donee is not disputed. The receipt of money through banking channels as foreign inward remittance is also not disputed by the Revenue. Once the relationship and receipt through banking channels are established, the transaction cannot be taxed merely on the ground that further documentary evidence regarding the donor's foreign income could not be produced, particularly when the donor had expired prior to initiation of reassessment proceedings. The assessee has also produced before us the copy of death certificate of her father, copy of his passport, bank passbook showing foreign inward remittance, certificate from Bank of Baroda. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the explanation offered by the assessee appears reasonable and the additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or conjectures. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, in view of the discussion above, we hold that the addition of Rs.51,32,442/- made u/s 68 of the Act is not sustainable in law and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said addition is set aside.” 6. There is no change in facts of the case, except the Donor is the Father-in-Law of the assessee. Further the foreign remittances are reflecting in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore the addition made u/s. 68 of Rs.51,24,142/- which is not sustainable, since the gift received by the assessee is well within the definition of relatives u/s. 52(2)(vii) of the Act. Thus the addition to the extent of Rs.51,,24,142/- is hereby directed to be deleted.

6.1. Regarding the remaining addition of Rs.40,000/- received from two partnership firms, the assessee failed to file partnership withdrawal, firm’s liquidity and actual debit from the firm’s bank account, along with its overall financial position. In the absence of the same, the addition remains to be confirmed.

I.T.A No. 1406/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 4 Mrs. Jayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel Legal heir of Late Rohitbhai Patel Vs. ITO

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24-04-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : True Copy Dated 24/04/2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →