DEVENDRA TIWARI,GHAZIABAD V. ITO WARD-2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

ITA 2863/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Devendra Tiwari against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld an addition of Rs.6,90,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee contended that these deposits were from cash gifts received from his father, a retired employee of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, and from his own cash in hand. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition from Rs.10,00,500 to Rs.6,90,000, accepting part of the assessee's explanation but still questioning the source of some deposits. The Tribunal, however, found the Revenue's stance on the cash gifts unacceptable, emphasizing that the manner of gifting by a father to his son is a personal prerogative and should not be doubted without substantial evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34417 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.2863/Del/2023 Devendra Tiwari (AY: 2016-17) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Devendra Tiwari III/H-39/1, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh – 201001 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2) CGO-II, Kamla Nehru, Nagar, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad, UP- 201002 \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEPPT6144M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY: (JM): The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, arising out of the Assessment Order passed by the ITO, Ward 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad dated 29.09.2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17. None for the assessee at the time of call. P a g e | 2 ITA No.2863/Del/2023 Devendra Tiwari (AY: 2016-17) 2. The Ld. AO finalized the assessment upon making addition of Rs.10,00,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit. In appeal addition was restricted to Rs.6,90,000/-. As per CIT(A) the assessee failed to justify the source of such cash deposits made by him. 3. On the contrary, the assessee deposited the cash in his bank account out of his cash in hand on 01.04.2016 and the cash gifts received from his father who retired from Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited. The assessee claimed receipt of gift from his father of Rs.15,45,000/- during the Financial Year 2015-16 particularly from 01.05.2015 to 11.03.2016 besides a gift of Rs.5 lacs on 02.02.2016 by cheque from him. Relevant to mention that the withdrawals were made by the father on very many occasions in the year under consideration which has been claimed to have been utilized for making gift in cash to the assessee and in turn the cash deposit made by the assessee. The case of the Revenue is this that had the father gifted any money to the assessee the same ought to have been gifted at a lump sum that too through cheques as has already been done in the case of gift made by the father to the assessee of Rs.5 lacs through cheque dated 02.02.2016 and therefore, the explanation rendered by the assessee was found to be not justifiable. 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. Under this present facts and circumstances of the matter, it is found that as the father has gifted the assessee Rs.5 lac by way of cheque and rest amount by cash at different intervals such cash gift was questioned by Revenue which is not found to be acceptable as the desire of a father how he would support his son either gifting him lump sum amount or at intervals is his P a g e | 3 ITA No.2863/Del/2023 Devendra Tiwari (AY: 2016-17) prerogative and cannot be doubted by Revenue in the absence of any negative evidence in support of such finding made. Thus, keeping in view this particular aspect of the matter, without any cogent reason assigned by the Revenue, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/- is found to be not sustainable and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.03.2025 Sd/- (Madhumita Roy ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 07.03.2025 PS: Rohit Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "