Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immoveable property for Rs. 9,00,000/- and paid stamp duty of Rs. 36,000/-. As this property was not shown in the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 9,36,000/-. The assessee explained that the funds were a cash gift from his father, who had agricultural income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash, as the father's agricultural income was not disputed. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.
Key Issues
Whether the addition on account of undisclosed investment in immovable property is justified when the source of funds was a cash gift from an agriculturist father.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 19-09-2024 passed by CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Patna for assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee purchased an immoveable property for a consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- and paid stamp duty of Rs. 36,000/- in A.Y. 2014-15. Since the assessee has not shown this property in balance sheet, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 9,36,000/- on account of undisclosed investment in immovable property. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee received gift from his father who is having agricultural income. Since the gift amount was received in Rameshkumar Singh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– cash, the assessee paid cash. The Assessing Officer did not dispute the fact that the assessee received gift from his father in cash. Thus, the assessee has given the details of the source of the cash amount, but the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) proceeded that the assessee did not explain the source of the income of the father which was agricultural income. In fact, the assessee clearly mentioned that the assessee’s father is agriculturist and this fact was not denied by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee has explained the source of the cash. Therefore, we hold that the property purchased in cash was genuine transaction and the addition does not sustain.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 21.01.2026