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 650 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) - gift received from relative or on occasion of marriage of the individual or by way of inheritance have no application to HUF as such the exception in case of HUF is restricted to the gift by will or in contemplation to death and the gift of ₹ 10,00,000/- was to be treated as income from other sources as per AO - AO did not accept the contention of the assessee as it was a clear case of tax evasion by furnishing wrong particulars as assessee came forward only when the notice u/s 148 of the Act and further noticed u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued - Held that:- The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the gift received from father of the Karta was exempt under the proviso (a) to section 56(2)(iv) of the Act and even the AO while framing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2009 did not make any addition and accepted the particulars furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the mistake of the assessee was a bonafide which was rectified by filing the revised return before receiving any notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and before receiving the copy of reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. There was no question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as the gift was received by the assessee HUF from the father of the Karta and this fact was available to the AO who framed the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2009. Later on, when a notice u/s 148 of the Act was received by the assessee the return of income was revised and the said gift which was earlier considered as exempt under a bonafide belief in view of proviso (a) to section 56(2)(iv) of the Act was offered for taxation and due taxes were paid. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT) and CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 677 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable in the peculiar facts of the present case. Decided in favour of assessee.
|