9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the learned authorised representative that the assessee is an individual, who is a dealer in Madras Steels and Tubes. It was the submission that the assessee had claimed to have received gifts and loans from his nephew, Shri Sushil Jain. It was the submission that the assessee had claimed to have received a gift of ` 45 lakhs as also a loan of ` 45 lakhs. In the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to prove the gift and the loan from Shri Sushil Jain. The assessee had submitted that Shri Sushil Jain was his nephew and was working with the Citi Bank at New York and the gift was made out of his own earnings in the U.S. It was the submission t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d consultancy provided to them regarding procurement of goods. It was the further submission that the gift and the loan was transferred out of the NRO account of the donor at Global Trust Bank and the credit of the sum into the bank was through telegraphic transfer. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had disputed the source of the transfer and as to how it was relatable to the donor. It was the submission that the assessee had provided the confirmation letter from the donor. The letter by the Assessing Officer was addressed to the donor at his address in Secunderabad whereas the donor was residing in USA. The bank account of the donor was also produced. The amount was credited to the donor s bank account through telegraphic tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) was liable to be deleted. 4. In reply, the learned Jr. Standing Counsel vehemently supported the orders of the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the loan and gift claimed by the assessee to have received from his nephew had not been established by the assessee. It was the submission that the Tribunal also in the quantum assessment confirmed the addition as made by the Assessing Officer. It was the further submission that the assessee had not proved the source or the capacity of the nephew, Shri Sushil Jain to give the loan and gift to the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be sustained. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is false. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clear on this issue insofar as it specifically uses the term fails to offer an explanation and the term offers an explanation which is found to be false as also the term explanation which he is not able to substantiate . Here the assessee has given an explanation. The explanation is substantiated by evidences. The explanation has not been shown to be false. In the circumstances, penalty is not leviable. In the circumstances, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stands reversed. In the circumstances the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 31/01/2012. - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
