BHARGAV THOMMANDRU,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, KURNOOL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 33/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted gifts from the assessee's parents and grandparents as their income was not disputed. However, the source of gifts from other donors was not established, and that portion of the addition was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income of ₹3,50,010 for AY 2017-18. The AO noticed cash deposits of ₹14.54 Lacs and added it to the assessee's income, disbelieving the claim of gifts from relatives. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in bank accounts can be treated as unexplained income when claimed as gifts from relatives, and if so, to what extent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, DR
Hearing: 11/07/2024

आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 30/11/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Na�onal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Bhargav Thommandru (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Assessee is an individual. He filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 24 2/8/2017 declaring a total income of ₹ 3,50,010/-. Learned Assessing Officer no�ced that there were cash deposits to the tune of ₹ 14.54 Lacs in the bank accounts of the assessee during the monitoring period. Assessee furnished the copies of the Andhra Bank Account No. 088410027070848 Statement for the financial year 2016-17 and also the copies of the Computa�on of Income Statement; Capital Account, Cash Book, Bank Book and Ledger for the financial year 2016-17 and pleaded that he received gi�s in cash from his parents, grand parents and close blood rela�ons during the year. Learned Assessing Officer did not believe the capacity of the donors and made the addi�on of en�re deposit amount to the income of the assessee. When the assessee preferred appeal learned CIT(A) also did not believe the version of the assessee and upheld the addi�on. Hence the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

Ld. AR submi�ed that the parents of the assessee gi�ed ₹ 3 Lacs each and they are the Income Tax assessees showing taxable income of about Rs. 4 and have Lacs and ₹ 3.25 lakhs respec�vely. So also, the grandfather and grandmother of the assessee who gi�ed a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs and ₹ 2.5 Lacs also happens to be an Income Tax assessee. He submi�ed that the authori�es did not dispute the income declared by these persons.

4.

Per contra, learned DR placed reliance on the orders of the authori�es and submi�ed that there is no evidence to show the agricultural income and also any withdrawals from the accounts of these persons and therefore, the gi�s are highly suspicious.

5.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The assessee had furnished the names of 7 people to have given cash gi�s. Out of the 7 persons for persons, namely, the parents and grandparents of the assessee are income taxpayers and declared income, as stated by the learned AR. It is not the case of the Revenue that there was a dispute in respect of the amount men�oned in this income tax returns filed by the parents and grandparents of the assessee. I am therefore, inclined to accept the gi�s given by the parents and grandparents of the assessee and direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addi�on to the extent of ₹ 10.5 Lacs. The source of other donors is not established. Therefore, I confirm the rest of the addi�on.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →