Tribunal rules on income tax appeal: gifts accepted under Section 68, capital gain addition deleted under Section 50C

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by upholding the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for gifts received but deleted the addition of Rs. 28,840 on Long Term Capital Gain under Section 50C. The Tribunal found the donors lacked creditworthiness for the gifts, supporting the AO and CIT(A)'s decision on Section 68. However, it ruled that Section 50C did not apply due to the transfer being based on an unregistered agreement, following precedents that held Section 50C inapplicable to such agreements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of gifts received.
2. Addition of Rs. 28,840 on Long Term Capital Gain by applying Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 on account of gifts received:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO noted that the assessee received Rs. 1,25,000 from Shri Krishan Gopal and Rs. 1,75,000 from Smt. Anita Garg as gifts. The assessee provided copies of the donors' passbooks, balance sheets, computation of income, and gift deeds but failed to produce the donors for examination due to their bad health. The AO found that the donors were not creditworthy, had significant cash deposits shortly before making the gifts, and failed to discharge the onus under Section 68. The CIT(A) agreed, noting the donors' lack of creditworthiness and the suspicious nature of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's and CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing that the donors' financial capacity and the genuineness of the gifts were not satisfactorily proven. The Tribunal noted that the donors had limited liquid resources and were undergoing medical treatment, making it improbable for them to make such gifts. The Tribunal also distinguished the case from precedents cited by the assessee, noting that the facts in those cases were different.

2. Addition of Rs. 28,840 on Long Term Capital Gain by applying Section 50C:
The assessee also contested the addition of Rs. 28,840 on account of long-term capital gain by applying Section 50C. The AO noted that the assessee sold a plot for Rs. 7,20,000 and showed a long-term capital gain of Rs. 5,71,349. The AO applied Section 50C, which deems the stamp duty value as the full value of consideration if it exceeds the sale consideration. The AO calculated the sale consideration for the land at Rs. 6,73,600, excluding the value of the boundary wall and construction, and found it fell short of the stamp duty value by Rs. 26,840, warranting an addition.

The Tribunal, however, found that Section 50C did not apply as the transfer was based on an unregistered agreement to sell, and no stamp duty value was assessed. The Tribunal cited the ITAT Jodhpur Bench's decision in Navneet Kumar Thakkar vs. ITO and the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. R. Sugantha Revindran, which held that Section 50C does not apply to unregistered agreements. The Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 50C was not warranted and deleted the addition of Rs. 28,840.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 but deleted the addition of Rs. 28,840 under Section 50C.

---