GURMEET SINGH,PUNJAB V. ITO, WARD-2(2), ROPAR, PUNJAB

ITA 712/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gurmeet Singh, an agriculturist, who received gifts totaling \\u20b911,15,000 from his cousins for sending his son abroad for studies. Initially, Singh declared an income of \\u20b93,36,320 in his tax return for the assessment year 2010-11. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under sections 147 and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added \\u20b9300,000 to Singh's income, as the gifts from cousins did not qualify as 'relatives' under section 56(2)(vii). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, leading Singh to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities that the statutory definition of 'relative' does not include cousins, and thus the gifts were correctly taxed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772283 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER KAUR WARAICH
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Gift
• Section: 147; 56

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 712/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, 939, Type II, Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Rupnagar 140113 बनाम Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ropar èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGEPS7897P अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 04.07.2024, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The Registry has pointed out that there was a delay of 245 days in filing of the appeal. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted an Printed from counselvise.com 2 application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, which is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com 3 Printed from counselvise.com 4 Printed from counselvise.com 5 Printed from counselvise.com 6 3. I have considered the reasoning given in the affidavit and inclined to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for this condonation of delay. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of ₹3,36,320/-. The assessment was reopened under section 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was found during assessment proceedings that the assessee had received gifts aggregating to ₹11,15,000/-, out of which ₹1,00,000/- each was received from three cousins namely, Shri Baldev Singh, Shri Jaswinder Singh and Shri Nirmal Singh. The Assessing Officer held that these persons do not fall within the definition of “relative” as given in section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹3,00,000/- was treated as income from other sources and added to the total income. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition, holding that gifts received from cousins are not covered under the definition of “relative” prescribed in section 56 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 7 7. Before me, Shri Aggarwal, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee, appeared and fairly submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist by occupation and was not aware about the scope and limits of the definition of “relative” provided under the Act. It was pleaded that under a bona fide though mistaken belief, the assessee had accepted financial help from his cousins in the nature of gifts/loans for the purpose of sending his son abroad for studies. It was further urged that the assessee had no intention to evade tax and acted under ignorance of the technical definition provided in section 56. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the statute has provided an exhaustive definition of “relative” in section 56(2)(vii) and cousins are not included therein. Hence, the addition has rightly been made and sustained. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The statutory definition of “relative” as given in section 56(2)(vii) is exhaustive and restricts the scope of exemption to specified categories only. The legislature in its wisdom has not Printed from counselvise.com 8 included cousins within the ambit of “relative”. Hence, the contention of the assessee, though arising from ignorance, cannot override the express provisions of law. The gifts received from cousins amounting to ₹3,00,000/- fall squarely within the mischief of section 56(2)(vii) and are rightly brought to tax as income from other sources. 10. In the light of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition. The appeal of the assessee therefore fails. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27.08.2025. Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) Judicial Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com 9 1. Draft dictated 27.8.2025 Sr.PS 2. Draft first placed before author 8.2025 3. Approved draft comes to Sr.PS/PS 8.2025 4 Final draft placed before author 8.2025 5. Order signed and pronounced on 8.2025 6 File sent to the Bench Clerk 8.2025 Sr.PS 7. Date on which file goes to the AR 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 9. Date of dispatch of Order Printed from counselvise.com "