9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 2.3.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 4890/Del/2005, for the assessment year 1994-95, claiming following substantial q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his return on 20.9.2001 for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring an income of Rs.43,534/- with a note that during the financial year 1993-94, he had received a gift of Rs.2,00,000/- from NRE Account of Shri Sanjeev Gupta vide DD No.190733 dated 28.10.1993. The gift of Rs.2,00,000/- was held to be bogus as admitted by the donor Shri Sanjeev Gupta. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.10.2005 deleted the said penalty on the ground that the Tribunal had deleted the addition of Rs.2,20,000/- by accepting the gift to be genuine. The department filed appeal challenging the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal vide order dated 2.3.2006 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that the gift received by the assessee from Sh. Sanje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it has been held that the alleged gift from NRE, Sh. Sanjeev Gupta was not a genuine gift. 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 penalty is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of the income and was liable for penalty under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
