MAYA DEVI,HAZARIBAG vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
Facts
The assessee, a widow, received a loan of Rs.4,20,000 from Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta and gifts from her mother-in-law (Rs.1,49,000), father (Rs.1,81,000), and brother (Rs.4,95,000). These funds were allegedly used for purchasing property. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the income, which were upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the loan from Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta was received through banking channels, and its identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness were proven, thus the addition on this count was deleted. Similarly, the gifts from closely related individuals were confirmed and fell under the exempted category as per Section 56(2) of the Act, leading to the deletion of the addition.
Key Issues
Whether the loan and gifts received by the assessee are to be treated as income, and whether additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are sustainable.
Sections Cited
56(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMCBENCH”,RANCHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“SMCBENCH”,RANCHI BEFORESHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM (THROUGH HYBRID MODE) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.319/RAN/2024 (Ǔ��ȡ[����[/ Assessment Year :2017-2018) Maya Devi, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Mahkol, Surajpura, Padma, Centre/PTN-W-(57)(1) Hazaribagh ̾ĈĭĒıĕĸù ĭĝŃ./PAN No. : BEIPD 3706H (\ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×��ȸ/ Respondent) ..
ĮċĊĭŊįēćıकीओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. �ȡ�è��ȧj � ȯ/Revenue by : Shri Khubchand Pandya, Sr.DR Ǖ��ȡ_�ȧ�ȡ�ȣ�/ Date of Hearing : 07/05/2025 �Ȫ��ȡ�ȧ�ȡ�ȣ�/Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R PerBench: Thisis an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.06.2024of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065958703(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand Pandya, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assesse had received a loan of Rs.4,20,000/- from Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta, who was the relative of the assesse. The assesee had also received gift of Rs.1,49,000/- from her
2 ITA No.319/Ran/2023 mother-in-law Smt. Malti Devi and an amount of Rs.1,81,000/- from Shri Lalit Kumar, who is the father of the assesse. The asessee had also received Rs.1,95,000/- from her brother Shri Kuldeep Kumar. It was the submission that these amounts were received on account of the purchase of a property by the asessee for a consideration of Rs.58,85,000/-. It was the submission that the assesse is a widow. It was the submission that in respect of the loan from Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta for an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-, the same was received through RTGS and bank account details and transactions were also recorded in the bank accounts and Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta had also confirmed the transaction. In respect of the gift received from assessee’s mother-in-law Malati Devi, it was submitted that she was drawing a family pension after the death of her husband, who was working in the Accountant General Office of Jharkhand. It was the submission that in respect of the gift received from Lalit Kumar, who was the father of the assesse, the certificate and confirmations and affidavits have also been produced that the same are out of the agricultural income. The sum received from Shri Kuldeep Kumar, who is brother of the assesse for an amount of Rs.4,95,000/-.It was the submission that the confirmation letters have been produced in respect of the three persons who have given the gifts and the person who had given the loan. It was the prayer that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. 4. In reply, ld.Sr. DR supported the orders of the AO and ld.CIT(A).
3 ITA No.319/Ran/2023 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the case clearly shows that the loan has been received form Shri Vivendra Prasad Mehta through banking channels. The confirmation is filed and the transactions are through bank accounts, thus, the same remained undisputed. The assesse having proved the identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness, the said loan cannot be treated as the income of the assesse and consequently the addition as made in respect of loan from Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta stands deleted. 6. Coming to the gift received from Malti Devi, Lalit Kumar and Shri Kuldeep Kumar, they are closely related to the assesse, who have confirmed the transactions, no evidence have been found to doubt the transaction and the relationship is also not disputed. As the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of three gifts have also been proved and it is not disputed regarding relationship of the three persons with the assesse, they fall within the exempted category under the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Act and consequently, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable and consequently the same is hereby deleted. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ĕĸù ĭĝ ĉ˟ Ɋ ĭĮĒø ĝ ĉ˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER राँचीRanchi; Ǒ��ȡȲ�Dated 07/05/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra,Sr.P.S.
4 ITA No.319/Ran/2023 ] �ȯ��ȧĤǓ�ͧ�ͪ�\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to : \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant-. 1. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent- 2. ç Ēø ēç ĒIJƅ (अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. ] ���] �ǕÈ�/ CIT 4. ĮęĐĭúıĒŮĮćĮċĮĊ, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राँची/ DR, ITAT, Ranchi 5. �ȡ�[�ȡ_�/ Guard file. 6. ×�ȡͪ��ĤǓ�//True Copy// आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) ] ���\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ ͬ����, राँची/ ITAT, Ranchi
