Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1203 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - unexplained gifts received - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jaspal Singh vs CIT (2006 (9) TMI 143 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) wherein it has been held that mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channel is not enough to prove genuineness of the gift. The assessee is required to establish that the donor had the means and the gift was genuine, for natural love and affection. The facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts of the case above, thus find no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities on this issue. - Decided against assessee Reasons for reopening of the assessment are different from the basis on which addition was made by the Assessing Officer - Held that:- Assessing Officer has power to make additions even on the ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued in case during reassessment proceedings, he arrives at a conclusion that some other income has escaped assessment which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings for reassessment under section 148 of the Act. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012 (6) TMI 616 - Punjab and Haryana High Court) hold that reopening of the assessment was valid and, therefore, ground raised by the assessee in this appeal deserves to be rejected. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The gift said to have been received by the assessee was held to be bogus. Once that is so, the only conclusion is that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and, thus, penalty was liable to be levied against him under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. See CIT Vs. Deep Chand [2011 (2) TMI 604 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee
|