9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. There was no illegality in the Department initiating penalty proceedings. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 3331, 3332 & 3333/M/2013, I.T.A. Nos. 3398, 3399 & 3400/M/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Beharilal Respondent by: Shri Love Kumar Shri S.D. Srivastava ORDER PER BENCH: ITA No. 3331/M/2013 is the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2002-03. ITA No. 3332 3398/M/13 are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue for A.Y. 2003-04, ITA Nos. 3333 3339/M/13 are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue for A.Y. 2004-05 and ITA No. 3400/M/2013 is the appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2006-07. All these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 3331/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2002-03 Assessee s appeal 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A)-17, Mumbai by his order dt. 28.2.2013. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return for the year was filed on 31.7.2002 declaring total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out by the department, the concealment of income would never have come to the notice of the department. 3.4. Referring to the proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee has accepted that the transaction carried through him are nothing but Hawala entries whereby the unexplained income has been brought in the books in the guise of receipt of gifts from various parties. The AO was convinced that the amount of income for which concealment/inaccurate particulars have been submitted is ₹ 50 lakhs and after considering the facts, penalty was levied at ₹ 15.30 lakhs. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated his contention. It was claimed before the Ld. CIT(A) that during the course of survey u/s. 133A, no incriminating documents or any other material was found to the notice of Authorised Officer which can conclusively prove or establish that various gifts received by the assessee were in the nature of accommodation entries and establish that the said gifts were not genuine. It was explained that the offer was made voluntarily and to avoid litigation with the department with understanding that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000 3 Rishi R Oswal 5,000,000 2,000,000 3,850,000 2,000,000 12,850,000 4. Deep Oswal (Minor) 7,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 14,000,000 5. Madhulika Oswal 5,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000 6. Bhikibai Oswal 5,000,000 2,000,000 3,975,000 2,000,000 12,975,000 7. R.J. Oswal(HUF) 4,500,000 1,500,000 4,275,000 1,000,000 11,275,000 8. Rishi Oswal (HUF) 6,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 13,500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d through cheques. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 has held that transfer of monies through banking channels is not sufficient to hold gifts as genuine. It is also an admitted fact that the donors are not at all related to the donees. In all the proceedings, the main plea of the assessee was that the amount was offered as income to avoid litigation and to purchase peace of mind. 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs MAK Data Ltd 358 ITR 593 has held as under: Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the assessee had only stated that it had surrendered the additional sum of ₹ 40,74,000 to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the Income-tax Department. The statute did not recognize those types of defences under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection by the Assessing Officer in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3420/M/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06. For our detailed reason given in the appeal of Mrs. Rashila R. Oswal and on finding the facts in issues in this appeal to be identical, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 3333/M/13 A.Y. 2004-05 Assessee s appeal 16. The assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved by the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 20 lakhs in respect of gifts received from various parties. 17. Facts and issues are identical to the facts considered by us in detail in ITA No. 3331/M/2013 for A.Y. 2002-03 except that during this year the assessee has claimed to have received gifts amounting to ₹ 40 lakhs. However, ₹ 20,00,000/- only has been offered by the assessee in his return as income from other sources. Therefore, the penalty has been levied and confirmed on the balance of ₹ 20 lakhs, which was not offered for taxation in the return of income. For similar reason, the levy of penalty is confirmed. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 3399/M/13 A.Y. 2004-05 Revenue s appeal 18. Facts and issues are identical to the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
