SAURABH GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 37/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 November 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that cash received from an HUF is exempt u/s 10(2) of the Act, as an HUF is a group of relatives and money withdrawn is from the contributor's own resources. The addition for AY 2020-21 was deleted based on this reasoning and precedents.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act covered the premises of M/s Nector Life Sciences Group. The assessee declared income for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, but the AO made additions based on cash found from the assessee's HUF and residence, treating some as unexplained gifts and unexplained cash.

What were the issues?

Whether cash received from HUF and cash found from residence are taxable as unexplained income/gifts, and if the AO erred in levying tax at a higher rate u/s 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2),Section 56(2)(x)(a),Section 56(2)(vii),Section 10(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Hearing: 13.10.2025Pronounced: 20.11.2025
1.

The present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 25.11.2024 passed for assessment year 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively.

& 38/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 & 2021-22 2

2.

The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2020-21 and seven grounds of appeal in assessment year 2021-22. However, in brief his grievance revolves around a single issue in both the years, namely, the ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4 lacs and Rs.4,13,800/- in assessment year 2021-21 and 2022-22 respectively. It has also been alleged that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of AO for levying the rate of tax at higher rate u/s 115BBE of the Act in both these years.

3. The brief, facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the premises of M/s Nector Life Sciences Group of cases wherein residence of the assessee was also covered under search. The assessee has originally filed his return of income on 10.01.2021 and 27.12.2021 declaring income of Rs.75,84,190/- and Rs.1,11,05,140/- in assessment year 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. The AO has issued notices u/s 143(2) in both the years. On verification of the record, it revealed to the AO that assessee has received a sum of Rs.4 & 38/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 & 2021-22 3 lacs from his HUF where he is ‘Karta’ in assessment year 2020-21. Similarly, in the accounting period relevant to assessment year 2021-22, a cash of Rs.6,63,800/- was found during the course of search from the residence of the assessee. A sum of Rs.4,13,000/- was found from the bedroom of the assessee and his wife whereas Rs.2,50,000/- was found from his son Mr. Aryan Goyal. The AO has held that gift received from the HUF is taxable because HUF does not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Relatives’ provided in Section 56(2)(x)(a) read with 56(2)(vii) of the Act. With regard to the cash found from the residence of the assessee in assessment year 2021- 22, he allowed the benefit of Rs.2,50,000/- on the ground that this much cash must have been kept by the family from explained sources of income and rest was treated as unexplained.

4.

Appeal to the ld. CIT (Appeals), in both the years, did not bring any relief to the assessee.

5.

With the assistance of the ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. As far as addition made in assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, we find that this issue & 38/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 & 2021-22 4 is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT passed in the case of Pankil Garg Vs PCIT 108 taxmann.com 337 (Chandigarh- Trib) and Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia Vs ITO, Ward 1(2) Ahmedabad ITA No.2244/Ahd/2017. Copies of both these decisions have been placed on the Paper Book from page Nos. 7 to 26. The Tribunal has examined these issues in very detail and observed that HUF is a group of relatives and any money/asset received from HUF is exempt u/s 10(2) of the Act. In other words, it is not taxable because it has been withdrawn by the member of the HUF from his own resources contributed in the HUF. Considering the proposition laid down in these judgements, we are of the view that ld. AO has erred in making the additions. Accordingly, we allow this ground of appeal and delete the additions.

6.

In the result, appeal in assessment year 2020-21 is treated as allowed.

7.

As far as assessment year 2021-22 is concerned, the stand of the assessee was that the same was kept by him from his explained resources. It is pertinent to note that in these two years, declared income of the assessee is more than & 38/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 & 2021-22 5 Rs.1,85,00,000/- i.e. Rs.75,84,000/- in assessment year 2020-21 and Rs.1,11,00,000/- in assessment year 2021-22. These two figures itself indicate that assessee has sufficient sources. At the most, benefit of telescoping can be given qua the declared income because nothing has been set off by the AO or no other addition has been made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Accordingly, the addition in assessment year 2021-22 is also deleted.

8.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced on 20 th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →