PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s order that receipts from a relative, even if not strictly without consideration, are not taxable under Section 56(2)(vi)(e) if they are mere receipt and payment transactions between relatives.
What were the facts?
The assessee received money from his brother-in-law, which was settled in subsequent years. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal held these transactions to be simple receipt and payment between relatives, not taxable under Section 56(2)(vi).
What were the issues?
Whether money received from a relative is taxable under Section 56(2)(vi)(e) of the Income Tax Act, even if there is an attached liability to pay later, and whether such transactions between relatives are aggregated for tax purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~144 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 458/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI. ....Appellant Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. versus KRISHAN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %
23.08.2024 CM APPLs. 48400/2024 (118 days delay in filing), 48401/2024 (184 days delay in refilling) Bearing in mind the disclosures made in these applications, delay in filing and refilling of appeal is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. ITA 458/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner seeks to question the judgment handed down by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 dated 27 April 2023 and posits the following questions for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding that receipt of money from ‘Relative’, as defined under clause (e) of the proviso to section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, would not be subject to tax, even without satisfying conditions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, i.e., receipt being ‘without any consideration’? 2.2 Whether the Tribunal is right in upholding contrary findings in 1 Tribunal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/08/2024 at 12:56:00
the order of CIT(A), i.e., the receipt of money from ‘Relative’ would not be taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, and also observing that ‘money was received with attached liability to pay (later)’, which establishes that said money was not received ‘without consideration’? 2.3 Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) that various transactions of receipts and payments of money by the Assessee, would be aggregated and only net amount can be subject to tax, even though the Assessee failed to offer any explanation or supporting documents to demonstrate purpose, utilisation, and genuineness of such transactions and creditworthiness of such lender?” 2. The solitary issue which appears to arise is with respect to the scope and ambit of Section 56(2)(vi)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 19612. 3. Undisputedly, and as the Tribunal has found, the loans had been extended by the brother-in-law of the assessee. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)3 had observed that the transactions constituted a mere receipt of payment between two relatives. This view has come to be affirmed by the Tribunal, as would be evident from a reading of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order and which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the banking transactions have been carried out between the assessee and Shri Nagendra who happens to be brother-in-law of the assessee. It is further noticed that the receipt by banking channel from Shri Nagendra has been settled by the assessee in the subsequent years. The CIT(A) observed that the transactions are simple receipt and payment transactions between two relatives and has no connection with any property transaction. 9. We find that the CIT(A) has examined the issue threadbare and has given his objectives considerations to the facts in issue. In the absence of any material on record contrary to the version of the assessed, the CIT(A) has given relief in accordance with law. We see no error in the findings given by the CIT(A). We thus decline to interfere therewith.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the instant appeal fails to 2 Act 3 CIT(A) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/08/2024 at 12:56:00
raise any substantial question of law. It shall accordingly stand dismissed. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. AUGUST 23, 2024/vp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/08/2024 at 12:56:00
More judgments on Section 56(2)(vi)
- Ms Manisha Madhukar Shatalwar, Nagpur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), NagpurITA 552/NAG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dipaliben M. Shah, Vadodara vs The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, VadodaraITSSA 106/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed8 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
- Dipaliben M. Shah, Vadodara vs The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, VadodaraITSSA 104/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed8 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
- Dipaliben M. Shah, Vadodara vs The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, VadodaraITSSA 103/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed8 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
- Dipaliben M. Shah, Vadodara vs The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, VadodaraITA 537/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026