TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regard, in our considered opinion, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not justified. - Decision in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2189/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2012 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Sh. Jitendra Garg, CA Department by : Sh. K.V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 22.2.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03. 2. The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer imposing the penalty of Rs. 4,65,208/-. 3. In this case proceedings under section 148 were initiated on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) XXIV, New Delhi vide his appellate order dated 11.11.2009 had also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,65,208/- on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard and has observed that assessee has received bogus accommodation entries of Rs. 5 lacs each from three persons as alleged gifts. The assessee was not related to these persons and there was no occasion for such gifts. During the appellate proceedings against the addition of gifts as income, assessee surrendered the amount with a condition that, no penalty w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted the order of the authorities below and pleaded that the imposition of penalty be sustained. 8. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that section 271(1(c) of the Act postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. In this case we find that gifts were received by the assessee from three persons amounting to Rs. 15 lacs (Rs. 5 lacs each). Assessee has furnished documents from the donors like memorandum of gifts, affidavits, PAN card, ration card, copy of ITR and wealth tax return, copy of income tax and wealth tax assessment orders, copy of bank accounts. These gifts were declared in the statement of affairs filed alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 8.2 We further refer to the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
