9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not in any financial difficulty and therefore, it is clear that these are bogus gifts – the explanation given by the assessee is totally false and accordingly explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) would not be attracted – thus, no substantial question of law arise for consideration - Decided against Assessee. - ITA No. 369 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 26.8.2013 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A , Chandigarh (hereinaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urces and framed the assessment at ₹ 11,84,860/- vide order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure A-1). Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT(A) ] who vide order dated 25.1.2010 dismissed the appeal. Against the order dated 25.1.2010, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.9.2010 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty be not imposed for concealment of income. The Assessing Officer vide orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the assessee was held to be false. It was observed as under:- Now coming to the facts in case before us, the assessee has received two gifts amounting to ₹ 1 lakh from Amrit Dilawari and ₹ 5,46,575/- from Shri Charanjeet P. Singh. During the assessment proceedings the statement of the assessee was recorded in which the assessee was asked to give the addresses of such donees. It may be true that the assessee may not remember the full addresses but at least the persons who is giving a sum of ₹ 1 lakh and ₹ 5,46,575/-, he should have known the State or City of USA where such donees were living. This clearly shows that the gifts are bogus. Further a question was asked that on what occasion the gifts were given. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
