9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Delay in refiling, appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, legality of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, addition made by treating alleged gifts received as not genuine and bonafide transaction.
Delay in refiling: The delay in refiling was condoned by the court. Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The appellant filed an appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B", New Delhi, regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1999-2000. Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for introducing unexplained money as gifts. The penalty was upheld by the appellate authorities based on the finding that the gifts were not genuine and the assessee failed to provide an acceptable explanation. Legality of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act: The issue in this appeal revolved around the legality of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was upheld by the appellate authorities due to the addition made on account of alleged bogus gifts received by the assessee. Addition made by treating alleged gifts received as not genuine and bonafide transaction: The Assessing Officer added an amount to the assessee's income on the basis of alleged bogus gifts received, which were deemed not genuine. The Tribunal upheld this addition and penalty, stating that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the gifts. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the appeals, dismissing them as no substantial question of law arose in the case. The court upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the gifts were not genuine and the assessee had introduced unexplained money as gifts.
|
