9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is bona fide. There was no factual dispute. Therefore, Tribunal held that the assessee has discharged the primary burden. There was no material brought by the Revenue to show that the explanation of the assessee is either false or lacking in bonafides. It is in these circumstances, the Commissioner was justified in deleting the penalty. That view of the Commissioner was upheld. We do not think any wider question or larger controversy was dealt with by the Tribunal. The penalty is deleted essentially in the above factual background. - Decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. Mr. Sham Walve for the Appellant. P.C: 1. Heard Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer of ₹ 45,38,213/under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Certain additions were made to the return of income by the Assessing Officer on which penalty came to be imposed. 7. The assessment order was passed on 31.12.2010 where the return of income was enhanced. The assessee is an individual and she filed her return of income declaring total income of ₹ 3,36,690/. She declared income from house property, salary as well as income under the head, Income from other sources . The scrutiny assessment was undertaken and various additions came to be made in relation to low household withdrawals, interest income, TDR receipts and short term capital gain. Out of the total additions made to the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uage of the statutory provision and the peculiar facts. Once the assessee is a beneficiary of the amount received as a consequence of the transfer executed by her husband, of which she had no knowledge, she offered that during the course of the assessment proceedings, that does not mean that her act can be brought within the penalty provision. The explanation rendered by the assessee is bona fide. There was no factual dispute. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that the assessee has discharged the primary burden. There was no material brought by the Revenue to show that the explanation of the assessee is either false or lacking in bona fides. It is in these circumstances, the Commissioner was justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
