CHERYL J PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC13, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search regarding the gifts declared in the original return, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. The appeals concerning the gifts were allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared gifts in their original return of income before a search was conducted. No incriminating material related to these gifts was found during the search. The Assessing Officer made an addition for alleged bogus gifts, which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether additions for gifts declared in the return of income are sustainable when no incriminating material is found during a search. The consequential issue of charging interest under sections 234A and 234B was also considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.1,823 citing374 ITR 645 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER BENCH:
These matters were taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing mode. These three appeals by the two different assessees are arising out of the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)- 37/I.T.483 to 489/ACCC-13/11-12 & CIT(A)-37/I.T. 504 to 508/ACCC-13/11-12 even date 27.06.2012. The Assessments were framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13, Mumbai (in short ACIT/ITO/ AO) for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 vide dated 16.12.2011, under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he is pressing only ground No. 4.1 to 4.3 and 5 and not pressing the rest of the grounds. On this, the learned CIT Departmental Representative Shri V. Sreekar has not raised any objection.
First of all it is stated by the learned counsel that identical issue of jurisdiction is therein in all the three appeals and issue is arising out of the same search conducted. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in all the appeals i.e. in & 5541/Mum/2012 except quantum, hence, we will take the facts from ITA No.5544/Mum/2012 for Assessment Year 2003-04 and decide the issue.
4.2 While doing so, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:
(i) the Appellant had duly/ fully explained the source of the gifts received by hi, by placing on record all the relevant documentary evidences;
(ii) all the gifts received by the Appellant were genuine gifts; and (iii) the action of the Assessing Officer in making the alleged addition was based purely on surmises, suspicion and conjectures.
Briefly stated facts are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Jayant B. Patel and connected persons including assessee on 10.01.2007, consequent to this search, certain materials were found and additions were made which were subject matter challenged before but not challenged by assessee rather these grounds are withdrawal as noted above.
The only issue before us remains is of unexplained gifts received by assessee and addition made by Assessing Officer of ₹15,59,555/-, whereas CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹14,09,555/- after allowing relief of ₹1.5 lacs.
Before us the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee has shown this gift of ₹15,59,555/- in his computation of income filed along with return of income for Assessment Year 2003-04 filed originally on 30.09.2003. Subsequently in response to notice under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 19.05.2008. In the original return of income, the assessee specifically filed name and address and PAN No. of the person giving gifts. The learned Counsel for the assessee before us now stated and took us through the assessment order and argued that no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect to these unexplained gifts rather these gifts are declared in the return of
This is being a consequential ground, the Assessing Officer will consider the argument of the assessee afresh and then will decide this issue. Hence, we remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026