9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility may be justified, but, the same cannot the basis for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), specially when there are overwhelming documentary evidences in support of the genuineness of the gifts which is further fortified by the statements of the donors. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income so as to make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3419/Del /2013 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the by the CIT appeals by raising the following grounds of appeal 1. Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Because, the leaned commissioner of income tax (A), erred in appreciating the provisions of section 275 of the Act, as per which no order of penalty could have been passed in the absence of existence of an order of penalty being passed within the time of limitation may be order dropping the penalty and hence AO had lost the jurisdiction and the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding penalty order is against the provisions of law. 3. Because, in addition to above, the leaned commissioner of income tax (A), erred in upholding the service of notice p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds, it is hereby prayed that the penalty order imposing penalty u/s 271(1) (c) may kindly be quashed, being totally illegal and arbitrary. 3. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the imposition of penalty was bad in law as the penalty was confirmed on the transactions which were rejected on the basis of human probability. It was submitted that the affidavits as well as gift deeds from all the donors were furnished before the lower authorities along with copies of income tax returns and bank accounts. It was further submitted that the copies of balance sheets were directly filed by all the donors in person before the AO and also that all the donors had appeared before the AO, confirmed the gifts as also disclosed the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court in the case of Khoday Eswarsa and Sons reported in 83 ITR 369 (SC), the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of reasons given in the original assessment order. We have examined the facts of the case for the purpose of penalty proceedings afresh and we clarify that our finding is limited to and relevant for the purpose of determining whether the assessee can be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income so as to make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) have held that the burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in assessment proceedings. A f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntary evidences in support of the genuineness of the gifts which is further fortified by the statements of the donors. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income or have concealed the income so as to make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While taking this view, we have relied upon the ratio of the legal propositions laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khoday Eswarsa and Sons (supra), Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Reliance Petroproducts (supra). We have examined the facts of the assessee's case in the light of the ratio laid down by the above three decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. We are of the opinion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
