9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C. Garg, who was in practice for more than 25 years out of India. The case law referred by the assessee are squarely applicable and the co- ordinate Bench decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A). - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 133/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM For The Revenue : Mrs. Neena Jeph (JCIT) For The Assessee : Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the learned CIT (A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2001-02. The sole ground of appeal is against deleting the penalty by ld. CIT (A), imposed under section 271(1)(c) by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(c) on legal representative under section 159 of the Act, has held that as per this section the legal heir is to be treated as assessee for all matters concerned. Thus he is liable for penalty for concealment of income to the extent of ₹ 20,00,000/- by introducing bogus gifts and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly he imposed penalty at ₹ 6,68,116/- under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 31.03.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT (A), who had allowed the appeal by observing that the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted that Smt. Kesar Devi Garg wife of the appellant i.e. late Shri Sua Lal Garg had also received gift of ₹ 10,00,000/- from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is seen that the donor who was also expired have filed affidavit in his lifetime that he has gifted a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs. Copy of his capital account showing source of gift and the bank account of the assessee where the amount credited was also filed. Copies of these documents are placed on record. Copy of the order of Tribunal is also placed on record where it has been observed that assessee could not prove conclusively that the gifts were genuine. Thus the same appeared to be no-genuine and the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions could also not be proved. After taking into account the observation of the Tribunal it is seen that though assessee could not prove conclusively the genuineness of the gift but have filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of these facts and circumstances we are of the view that at least penalty is not allowable on the facts of the present case, accordingly we cancel the levy of penalty. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. The ld. D/R argued that the addition on account of bogus gift has been confirmed by the ITAT in quantum proceedings. It is evident from the assessment order that in the statement recorded by the AO of Shri Sanwar Mal Saraff as well as of assessee had admitted that these gifts were arranged gifts which proved that assessee routed his unaccounted cash through gifts. The AO before passing the order has concluded that these gifts are arranged and bogus. The ld. D/R relied upon the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court decision in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor. The gifts were received through banking channel. He further argued that in number of cases various High Courts held penalty under section 271(1)(c) where enough documentary evidence in support of the gift received had been filed, no penalty required to be imposed. The Revenue has also not made out the case that assessee s own money has been routed back to the assessee in the form of gift from the donor. The concealment of income by the assessee had not been proved which is sine quo non for imposition of penalty. The assessee is no more. The penalty imposed on legal heir is defined under section 159 of the IT Act. The legal heir Dr. K.C. Garg does not have any knowledge about the fact. He was practicing as a Doctor for last 25 years in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal had decided identical issue in case of late Smt. Kesar Devi Garg wife of assessee wherein the gift of ₹ 10,00,000/- was received from Shri Sanwar Mal Saraff. The quantum addition was also confirmed by the ITAT in case of late Smt. Kesar Devi Garg for A.Y. 2001-02. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed in that case which has been deleted by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 11th May, 2012. The assessee is no more and expired on 26.09.2006. The penalty proceedings were completed on legal heir i.e. Dr. K.C. Garg, who was in practice for more than 25 years out of India. The case law referred by the assessee are squarely applicable and the co- ordinate Bench decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
