Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer reopened the case u/s. 147, suspecting a large cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. The assessee explained it as a gift of Rs. 3,50,000/- from her daughter for purchasing immovable property.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the transaction as a gift from her daughter. The daughter was financially capable of making the gift, and the source was not disputed by the Revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of gift received from daughter is sustainable when the assessee has provided sufficient explanation and evidence for the same.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 RUPAM DUBEY, VS. ITO-3(3), BIJNOR-1, HN 378, RAM BAGH COLONY, BIJNOR, UP BIJNOR, UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: AQUPD8074F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Jyoti Kumar Agarwal, CA Respondent by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.03.2025 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 on the solitary issue of addition of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
Heard both the sides and perused the records.
Brief facts of the case are that AO in the assessment proceedings noted that there was information in the insight portal that large amount of cash was deposited in the assessee’s saving bank account and the case was reopened u/s. 147 by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.3.2022. The AO also noted that the assessee filed original return of income on 01.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,40,370/- and in response to notice u/s. 148 on 16.1.2023 declaring the same total income. The assessee had responded to the notice stating that she had received Rs. 3,50,000/- as gift from her daughter for purchase immovable property furnished the bank statement, passport, cash flow statement, declaration of gift etc., and that since she had income below taxable limit she had not filed her return of income. The AO after considering the submissions and construed that the daughter of the assessee had no creditworthiness to gift to the assessee and added the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the action of the AO, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 18.03.2025 sustained the addition by reiterating the observations of the AO that the source of gift has been shown as cash deposits in her account totaling to Rs. 4 lacs including currency denomination and the donor had meagre bank balance before depositing Rs. 4 lacs. From the pattern of withdrawal and deposit the AO came to conclusion that if someone is having sufficient cash balance there was no need to deposit and withdraw cash regularly from the bank account. Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee is more financially sound and daughter (donor) is hardly having any capacity to donate and the assessee could not demonstrate with evidences that how daughter is having capacity to donate Rs. 3,50,000/- to the assessee who is having return of income of Rs. 7,40,370 which is improbable. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before me. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that assessee is an individual and a teacher by profession and engaged in the tuition activity during the year under consideration. The main grievance of the assessee is that addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act on account of gift received by the assessee from her daughter without appreciating the reply and documents submitted during the assessment proceedings and without going through the facts. It is noted that as far as cash balance of Rs. 4,12,310/- as on 31.3.2017 is concerned, the assessee’s daughter, after receiving the order, contacted her banker to provide the deposit slip of 09.03.2018 and 12.03.2018, shows that two deposit slips of having deposited the denomination of notes of Rs. 500, Rs. 100, Rs. 50, Rs. 20, & Rs. 10 which clearly shows the cash balance deposited in the account. As far as maintaining of cash balance is concerned, the daughter of the assessee always maintained cash in hand since a long time and she has regular practice of depositing and withdrawing the amount in a very short span of time to keep the account running. She always intends to maintain cash rather than maintaining it in the bank account. As far as during the demonetization period is concerned, only the currency of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- were scraped leaving the small currency intact. The daughter of the assessee Vijayratnam Pandit has small savings from last many years, she had only small currency with her, making no direct impact of demonetization. It is also undisputed that her daughter is not a minor, she is 25 years old and in this modern world she is capable to run the saving account by way of her earnings, which is of course below the prescribed limit of assessment, but 3 | P a g e she is very much capable to gift any amount kept in her saving account to her mother in the form of love and affection. It is also noted that source of transaction is not disputed in this case by the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that assessee has truly and fully explained the source of transaction which has been received in the form of gift from her daughter in the form of love and affection, who was having sufficient balance in her account at that point of time, therefore, the addition in dispute made in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is deserved to be deleted. Accordingly, I delete the addition in dispute by setting aside the orders of the lower authorities in the instant case.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.09.2025.