Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1300 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - proof of concealing the particulars of income - Held that:- In the instant case, penalty proceedings are separately initiated and has been mentioned by the AO that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separate Therefore following case of Nainu Mal Het Chand vs. CIT, (2006 (10) TMI 130 - ALLAHABAD High Court) it is of the view that the AO was justified in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is separately initiated. Therefore, it is not necessary for AO to mention that penalty proceedings is initiated for concealment of income for filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, this legal ground of the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained gifts - Held that:- During the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee was asked to prove sufficiency of fund for making the gift. No documentary evidence was produced at any stage. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee through Banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Therefore, as assessee could not prove the sufficiency of source of income which the Donor has no evidence to produce at any stage and when the done is not a close relative, the transaction is not genuine. Therefore, the AO has correctly levied the penalty. When the assessee has given the gifts to various persons, therefore, the penalty is to be confirmed. Therefore, opinion that the AO and ld. CIT(A) are justified in their action. - Decided against assessee.
|