9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7) TMI 1561 - ITAT MUMBAI]
When father of the assessee has already been slapped with penalty qua the amount invested by him in the name of the assessee by virtue of the order dated 31.07.2023 the assessee who has not disclosed the same under bonafide belief cannot be made to suffer, hence penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) u/s 43 of the BM Act is ordered to be deleted. Appeal of assessee iallowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income and accordingly disclosed the same in her return of income. Accordingly, the appellant pleads that a lenient view be taken in this matter and penalty u/s 43 levied on her be dropped. 5. The error in reporting in Schedule FA of the return of income in respect of A.Y 2017-2018 was due to oversight and not intentional. The appellant was under genuine belief that only investment made in out of her own bank account is to be reported in Schedule FA. 6. Penalty u/s 43 may not be levied where the source of funds for making the investments outside India are duly identified and out of tax paid income. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal and to submit such statements, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended that during the year under consideration one Shri Nirmal Jain having PAN ABRPJ9235G father of the assessee made an investment in Global Dynamic Opportunities Fund, Mauritius in the name of his daughter Ms. Harshita Nirmal Jain, the assessee in this case, out of his own income and capital. It is further contended by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee that in the return of income in Schedule FA the assessee has disclosed the investment to the tune of Rs.1,67,05,000/- whereas the remaining investment of Rs.5,59,75,000/- was made by Shri Nirmal Jain in the name of the assessee, thus total cost of investment in the name of the assessee is Rs.72,68,00,000/- (Rs.167,05,000/- + Rs.5,59,75,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Tribunal in case of Shri Nirmal Jain wherein the amount in question invested in the name of the assessee to the tune of Rs.5,59,75,000/- has already been dealt with. The relevant para is extracted for ready perusal as under: "4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. Undisputedly, the assessee in his return of income Schedule FA, has failed to report investments made in the name of his children/ minor children during the period relevant to AY under appeal. It is not the case of assessee that a separate return of income for the impugned AY in the name of children are filed and disclosure of overseas investments is made therein. The assessee has made inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
