TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief 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 asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 19.04.2011 asking the assessee to furnish return in response to the already issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and also to submit photocopies of all bank account along with debit and credit entries for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. In response the assessee filed a revised return declaring an income of ₹ 11,24,348/-. During Course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee under the status of HUF had received a gift of ₹ 10,00,000/- on 15.05.2006 from Sh. Sharat Chand Jain who is the father of Karta of assessee HUF. He further observed that the assessee had claimed this gift as exempt under the proviso (a) of section 56(2)(iv) of the Act and treated it as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid fact was accepted by the AO while passing the assessment order dated 31.03.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee before receiving the copy of reasons recorded, suo motu revised its return of income on 29.04.2011 and offered the amount received as gift for taxation. The said action of the assessee was considered as a voluntarily surrender as nothing specific of escapement of income was communicated before the return was revised. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the gift had been received from the family member of the Karta of the assessee and all the informations in the form of bank statements etc. were available with the AO while passing the order dated 31.03.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the gift was not taxable that is why the same was not included in the original return of income. It was stated that as soon as the assessee received notice u/s 148 of the Act, the return of income was revised, adding the said gift and all the due taxes were paid, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable on the same. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit (2012) 348 ITR 308 (SC) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 0044 (Del) CIT, Udaipur Vs The Udaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., ITA No. 105/2013, order dated 01.05.2015 (Raj. HC) M/s Riffleberg Capital (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT, ITA No. 4990/Del/2012, order dated 02.02.2015, New Delhi CIT Vs B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome because the return of income was revised before receiving any notice u/s 142(1) of the Act from the AO. 8. On a similar issue the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (supra) has held as under: It is repeatedly held by the Courts that the penalty on the ground of concealment of particulars or non-disclosure of full particulars can be levied only when in the accounts/return an item has been suppressed dishonestly or the item has been claimed fraudulently or a bogus claim has been made. When the facts are clearly disclosed in the return of income, penalty cannot be levied and merely because an amount is not allowed or taxed to income, it cannot be said that the assessee had filed inaccurat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. 11. In the present case also there was no question of furnishing of inaccurate particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
