2022 (3) TMI 1487 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - gifts received from Haribhat Vekariya alleging that the creditworthiness of the lender was not established - HELD THAT - It is not the case that revenue did not have the name and address of the person giving the gift. It is also not the case that the enquiry was made and the said person has failed to respond. CIT(A) has also accepted that the said person is having agricultural income and agricultural land. By no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that people having agricultural income cannot make a small savings to give a small amount of loan or gift. Addition by such presumption without making any cogent enquiry is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. We direct accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for gifts received.
2. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80C for tuition fees paid.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition made under section 68 for gifts received
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 1,99,725 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for gifts received from Shri Haribhai Vekariya. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the gifts, citing lack of clarity on the donor's income sources and absence of the donor's bank statement. The appellant argued that Shri Haribhai Vekariya, being the uncle of the assessee, earned income from agriculture and provided documents supporting his agricultural land ownership. However, the absence of clear evidence regarding the donor's income sources and the mode of gift transfer through a demand draft raised doubts. The appellant failed to substantiate the agricultural income earned by the donor, leading to the conclusion that the gift remained unexplained. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, considering the lack of clarity on the donor's income sources and the absence of sufficient proof of agricultural income. The ITAT, upon review, found the reasoning used to delete the first addition applicable to the second addition as well. It noted that the appellant had not provided concrete evidence to establish the donor's capacity to make the gift. The tribunal concluded that presuming individuals with agricultural income cannot save or gift small amounts without proper inquiry is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 1,99,725.

Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction under section 80C for tuition fees paid
The appellant challenged the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80C for tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539. However, during the proceedings, the appellant's counsel decided not to press for this ground, leading to its dismissal as not pressed. As a result, the disallowance of the deduction under section 80C for tuition fees paid was not further contested, and the appeal on this issue was not pursued.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appellant's appeal by setting aside the addition of Rs. 1,99,725 under section 68 for gifts received, while dismissing the challenge against the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80C for tuition fees paid.