9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief facts of the case are that the return of income in this case was filed declaring an income of Rs. 1,73,920/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had introduced capital of Rs. 12 Lacs in the partnership firm M/s Garg & Company. It was the assessee's explanation before the AO that out of Rs. 12 Lacs, Rs. 10 Lacs represented gifts received from five friends and relatives and Rs. 2 Lacs from personal resources. However, the AO did not accept the assessee's explanation and proceeded to add back Rs. 12 Lacs to the income of the assessee. There were certain other additions also and the matter travelled up to the ITAT. 2.1 The ITAT in the quantum appeal, vide order dated 13/04/2007, in ITA No. 4622/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rejecting the gifts by Hon'ble ITAT, and hence observation of Ld. CIT(A) that imposition of penalty itself is sufficient to prove the 'satisfaction' is inherently wrong. 5. Because, without prejudice to above and in alternative, on merits the leaned commissioner of income tax (A) erred in sustaining the order of penalty on the line of provision of section 68 and considering the additions as sacrosanct for penalty but without appreciating the facts that, a) Identity, capacity etc stands proved on the record with ample of evidences and donors have confirmed the gifts in their personal statements before AO. b) There are different quantum of additions by all the three authorities and gifts are accepted by Ld. CIT(A) but rejected by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was prayed that the penalty be deleted. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative, in response, vehemently argued that the penalty had rightly been imposed as even the ITAT had upheld the disallowance/addition pertaining to the alleged gifts. It was submitted that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him in this regard and, therefore, it was apparent that there was an active concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars and as such the penalty was imposable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that the penalty order should be upheld. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. We are conscious that in the quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails supplied by the assessee in the return of income are found to be incorrect, erroneous or false, then only it can be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.2 After considering the details furnished by the assessee, the copy of the income tax returns of the donors and the statements of the donors, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any of the details furnished by the assessee to be incorrect, erroneous or false. The Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of the gifts on the ground of human probabilities. In our opinion, what is humanly probable is certainly a matter of opinion and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
