9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as he was found to have deposited huge amount of money in cash in his bank accounts. During the course of assessment proceedings it was explained by the assessee that cash deposit of Rs.22,75,000 has come as gift from his father from time to time. In support of the same the gift deed dated 02-04-2007 and extracts of books of accounts of the father of the assessee were submitted. The gift deed was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it has no evidentiary value since the same was made by the father of the assessee who is an interested party and is also much after the end of the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year. However, the Assessing Officer accepted the books of account and balance sheet etc. of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer subsequently initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c). During the penalty proceedings, the assessee reiterated the same argument as advanced during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with such explanation and held that the assessee has not discharged the onus by not providing any evidence in penalty proceedings to substantiate his claim. Relying on a number of decisions the Assessing Officer held that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is clearly leviable. He accordingly levied penalty of Rs.2,70,954 being the minimum penalty@100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. In appeal the learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cases coincide. Therefore, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that although there is no specific mention of gift paid in the capital account of the father of the assessee and gift received in the capital account of the assessee, therefore, same may be justified for addition in the quantum assessment but cannot be a ground for attracting levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of the various details filed we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In this view of the matter, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
