Ramji Dass Garg, Dhuri V. ITO, Malerkotla

ITA 101/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 10121514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJ BHUSHAN BANSAL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 101/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI RAMJI DASS GARG, V ITO, WARD IV(4), S/O SHRI KAKA RAM, MALERKOTLA. PROP. M/S GARG GUN HOUSE, OLD ANAJ MANDI, DHURI. PAN: ABXPS-6706K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN BANSAL RESPONDENT BY: SMT.JAI SHREE SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 11.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2011 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE AC T'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. INCOM E TAX OFFICER, WARD IV(4), MALERKOTLA AS WELL AS CONFIRME D BY THE CIT (A)-II LUDHIANA IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND UNCALLED FOR. 2. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(L)(C) WORTH RS. 30833/- IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND UNCALLED FOR. 3. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND AGAINST THE ACTUAL FACTS AND THE LAW ON THE FILE . 4. THAT THE APPEAL FILED IS WITHIN LIMITATIONS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT MAY FURTHER CRAVES TO LEAVE, TO ADD OR TO AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL CONTENDED THAT 2 ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS .30,883/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST IFIED AND UNCALLED FOR. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT RE CEIVED GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS.99,557/- THROUGH CHEQUES FROM HIS NEPHEW SHRI AMANDEEP GARG (SON OF SISTER - IN-LAW). THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVES CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 56(2)(V)DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE A PPELLANT'S INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE FOR THE SAME. DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL NEGLECT OR BONAFIDE INTENTION BEHIND THE SAME. HE F URTHER PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE P UNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C1T VS. SHRI AMAR NATH. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT APPELLANT'S PLEA AND ALSO DISTING UISHED THE FACTS OF CASE LAW, RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. AFT ER PERUSING APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS THE AO LEVIED PENALTY, ON ACC OUNT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.30,833/-. 5. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT RECEIVED GI FTS FROM HIS NEPHEW AND THE AO OBSERVED THAT NEPHEW DOES NOT F ALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE AS PROVIDED U/S 56(2)( V) OF THE ACT. THE QUANTUM ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE AO, INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND EXPLANATI ON I 3 THEREUNDER, AS NO PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN CO NCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FURNISHE D. THE LD. 'CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E. 6. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DISCLOSED A LL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS PERTAINING TO THE SAID GIFTS R ECEIVED FROM HIS NEPHEW. THE CAUSE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS IS ROOTED IN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE PROVIDED U/S 56(2)(V) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A), IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD TH AT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FALLS U/S 271(1)(C) AND EXPLANATION (1) THEREUNDER, MERELY BECAUSE THE CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF RELATIVE U/S 56(2)(V) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, NONE OF THE INGREDIENTS OF CONCEALMENT OF IN COME AS CONTAINED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO, AND UPHELD BY TH E CIT(A), CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), IN THE MATTER ARE SET ASIDE AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MAY,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 4 TH MAY,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH