Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee received a gift from a HUF of which she is a member. The Assessing Officer treated this gift as income from 'other sources' on the basis that the assessee was not a 'relative' as per the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this order ex parte. The assessee's AR argued that subsequent decisions, including one from the Chandigarh Tribunal, supported their case and that proper opportunity was not given due to unfamiliarity with electronic modes.
Held
The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the gift from HUF. However, considering the ex parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee's argument about subsequent favorable judicial pronouncements and lack of proper opportunity, the Tribunal decided to allow one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the gift received from HUF can be treated as income from 'other sources' and if the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A).
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 56(2)(vii), 10(2), 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज� की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 07.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 10.01.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [for short to as “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 09.08.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 29.11.2019.
2. Rival submissions of both parties heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that Assessing Officer treated the gift received from HUF, as income from “other sources” by taking view that assessee is not included in the definition of “relative”. The (A.Y.15-16) Sachi Desai assessee has received such gift from HUF, wherein the assessee is one of the member. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Gyanchand M. Bardiya vs. ITO (2018) 93 taxmann.com 144 (Ahd-Tribunal). On appeal before Ld.CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld in ex parte proceedings. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is other decision subsequent to decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal, including the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in case of Pankil Garg Vs.PCIT (2019) taxmann.com 108 taxmann.com 337 (Chand-Trib) and earlier decision of Rajkot Tribunal in Vineet Kumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia Vs ITO (2011) taxmann.com 384 (Rajkot). The decisions of Chandigarh Tribunal also considered section 10(2) of the Act. However, such fact is not considered by Ld. CIT(A) as could not be brought to his notice. The Ld.AR of the assessee prayed that matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of issue afresh in accordance with law. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee could not make proper compliance before Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has given her mobile number and e-mail address while filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in Form-35 and she was not well verse with electronic mode. The Ld. AR of assessee submits that one more opportunity may be given to assessee to contest her case on merit before Ld.CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee was given ample opportunities by Ld.CIT(A) as recorded in para-3 of the impugned order,
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. We find that there is no dispute about the fact that assessee has received gift from HUF wherein she is a member of such HUF. The Assessing Office treated the gift as “income from other sources” by taking view that assessee does not fall in the category of “relative” define in clause-(ii) of Section 56(2)(vii). We find that Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in ex parte proceedings. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that there is subsequent decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in favour of assess and assessee maybe given one more opportunity to contest the case before Ld.CIT(A). Considering the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order by taking view that assessee has not made compliance despite service of notices on the e-mail provided in form-35 while filing appeal. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to allow one more opportunity to assessee to contest her case before Ld.CIT(A) again. Thus, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to pass order afresh in accordance with law after consideration decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in Pankil Garg Vs PCIT (2019) taxmann.com 108 taxmann.com 337 (Chand-Trib). Needless to direct the Ld.CIT(A) shall grant opportunity of being heard to assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide all evidences and information again to the Ld.CIT(A)
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/01/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat Dated: 10/01/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से,
सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत