TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act was clearly attracted to his case. There was concealment on the part of the assessee so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal was right in denying benefit under Proviso to Section 56(2)(vi) of the Act and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decide against assessee. - ITA No. 359 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. ANIL KSHETARPAL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. I.S. Kakkar, Advocate For The respondent : Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The appellant-assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 23.5.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had declared an amount of ₹ 21,07,513/- as an addition under the capital account on account of gifts received from relatives and friends on the occasion of his daughter s marriage. The details in this regard were disclosed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the aforesaid gifts be not treated as income under the head income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and explained that the gifts were received from the relatives and friends on the occasion of his daughter s marriage. The assessee explained that the said gifts woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalty to the tune of ₹ 7,09,390/- for alleged concealment of income. The assessee challenged the said order before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 22.09.2015, Annexure A.6, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.05.2016, Annexure A.7, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts, (2010) 11 SCC 762 to urge that penalty could not be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by him. 4. We have heard learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above discussion and decisions referred to above, it is clear that no fresh evidence or fresh circumstances were produced by the assessee at penalty stage to explain the penalty matter. There is no bonafide explanation on the part of the assessee that gift amount is exempted from tax because assessee is not entitled for any exemption of income under Section 56(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. It is a case of no evidence and no explanation offered by assessee to explain the genuineness of the gift in the matter. Assesseee merely gave name of the donors but did not prove their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and further claim of assessee u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce or satisfactory explanation was given. Thus, the judgment in Reliance Petroproducts s case does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Private Limited, (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court was considering the question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein it had concluded to be case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with malafide intention. Present is the case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The appellant could not prove the genuineness of the gifts. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Zoom Communication s case (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
