Dinesh Jain, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1096/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7312 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SUDHA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Salary income; Source of fund; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 14A; 131; 68; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH B BB B : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO S SS S . .. . 1091/DEL/2011 TO 1097/DEL/2011 1091/DEL/2011 TO 1097/DEL/2011 1091/DEL/2011 TO 1097/DEL/2011 1091/DEL/2011 TO 1097/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR S SS S : : : : 1999 1999 1999 1999 - -- - 2000 TO 2005 2000 TO 2005 2000 TO 2005 2000 TO 2005 - -- - 06 0606 06 SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, 201, SUR 201, SUR 201, SUR 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, YA KIRAN BUILDING, YA KIRAN BUILDING, YA KIRAN BUILDING, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 001. 110 001. 110 001. 110 001. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -2, 2,2, 2, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.1350/DEL/2011 TO 1355/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.1350/DEL/2011 TO 1355/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.1350/DEL/2011 TO 1355/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.1350/DEL/2011 TO 1355/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS ASSESSMENT YEARS ASSESSMENT YEARS ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000 : 2000 : 2000 : 2000 - -- - 01 TO 2005 01 TO 2005 01 TO 2005 01 TO 2005 - -- - 06 0606 06 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -2, 2,2, 2, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 001. 110 001. 110 001. 110 001. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. PAN : ADBPJ2732Q. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSES SEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, CA AND SHRI V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY : DR. SUDHA KUMARI, CIT - DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER BENCH PER BENCH PER BENCH PER BENCH : :: : IN ALL THESE APPEALS SEVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND S IX BY THE REVENUE, THE ONLY COMMON GROUND IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR AY 1999-2000 TO 2005-06 AT THE RATE O F 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE PENALTY AT 100% OF ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 2 THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL FOR ALL THE SEVEN YEARS I.E., AY 1999-2000 TO 2005-05 WHILE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR SIX YEARS I.E., AY 2000-01 TO 2005-06. THE YEAR-WISE POSITION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PENALTY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) 1999 - 2000 1,00,790 67,193 2000 - 01 75,76,441 50,50,961 2001 - 02 13,16,250 8,77,500 2002 - 03 23,34,383 15,56,258 2003 - 04 35,43,750 23,62,500 2004 - 05 12,87,000 8,58,000 2005 - 06 30,29,400 20,19,600 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT FOR AY 1999-2000, THE PENALTY SUSTAINED IS A SMALL SUM OF `67,193/-. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ACC EPT ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY HIM, BUT, DUE TO SMALLNESS OF THE PENALTY SUSTAINED, DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL FOR A Y 1999-2000. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE FACTS OF AY 1999-2000 ARE ALTO GETHER DIFFERENT THAN THE FACTS IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND, THEREFOR E, THE OUTCOME OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 1999-2000 WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS APPEALS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 1999-2000 MAY BE TREATED A S NOT PRESSED. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 1999-2 000 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. WITH REGARD TO AY 2000-01 TO 2005-06, IT IS SUBM ITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE FACTS IN ALL THE YEARS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR AND, THEREFORE, IF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2000-01 IS DECIDED, IT WILL TAKE CARE OF THE REM AINING YEARS. LEARNED DR ALSO AGREED THAT THE FACTS OF ALL THE YE ARS FROM AY 2000-01 ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 3 TO 2005-06 ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR. WE, THEREFORE , PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS REVENUES APPEALS FOR AY 2000-01 FIRST. 6. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING THE INCOME OF `1,63,65,386/-. DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MINOR SONS HAD RECEIVED THE TOTAL GIFT OF `1,52,00,000/- AS UNDER:- S.NO. DATE DONOR AMOUNT (IN RS.) DONEE 1 4.09.1999 NARESH JAIN 1500000 NAMIT JAIN 2 21.01.2000 NARESH JAIN 4200000 DINESH JAIN 3 4.09.99 ANIL JAIN 4500000 NAMIT JAIN 4 04.09.1999 ANIL JAIN 5000 000 MAYAK JAIN 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE GIFT AS GENUIN E AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF `1,52,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON APPEA L, LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON F URTHER APPEAL, THE ITAT ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS GIFTS RECEI VED BY THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN, FROM THE RECORD WE FOUN D THAT COPY OF GIFT DEED AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE GIFTS WERE SEIZED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZE D VIDE ANNEXURE NO.LP-4/A-2, LP 6/A-43. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SUMMONED THE DONORS AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND THE DONORS FURNISHED THEIR BANK STATEME NTS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS LIKE BALANCE SHEETS OF THEIR F IRMS, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS F OR DEMONSTRATING THE CAPACITY FOR MAKING GIFTS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DONORS DULY DISCLOSED TH E NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FAMILY AND EXPLAINE D THE REASONS FOR GIVING GIFTS TO THE APPELLANT AND HIS M INOR ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 4 CHILDREN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF STATEMENTS OF BOTH THE DONORS RECORDED BY THE AO. THESE STATEMENTS ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO AROUND SIX TO NINE MONTHS BACK BEFORE PASSIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 8.11.2007. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS WERE NE VER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO INSPITE OF HIS SPECIAL REQUEST MADE BY HIM IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAU SE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT IS TOTALLY ARBITRARY AND THE SAME I S MADE ON SUSPICION ONLY. BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RE PLIES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO AND T HE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A), AGAINST WHICH ASSESSE E IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THEM. FROM THE DETAIL S OF THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IT IS VERY CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE HABIT OF SHOWING GIFTS IN LARGE SUMS IN HIS NAME AND IN THE HANDS OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IT HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED BY T HE AO THAT THE TWO DONORS BY NAME SH. NARESH JAIN AND SH. ANIL JAIN ARE ONLY A NEIGHBOURS WITHOUT ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS TOTALLY UNIMAGINABLE TO THINK THAT THE NEIGHBOURS COULD GIV E MILLIONS OF RUPEES TO UNKNOWN PERSONS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. GIFTS USUALLY FLOW FROM CLOSE BLOOD RELATIONS AND CHILDHOOD FRIENDS. THAT TOO ONLY ON AN IMPORTANT OCCASIONS. MOSTLY THESE GIFTS ARE PREVAL ENT AMONG RELATIONS AND THEY ARE RECIPROCAL IN NATURE. MOST OF THESE GIFTS ARE IN KIND AND CASH GIFTS DO EXISTS BUT THEY ARE IN SMALL DENOMINATION. SELDOM WE SEE HUGE SUMS OF LANDS OF RUPEES AS GIFTS ESPECIALLY TO MINO RS. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS CLARIFIED THAT HE HAS N OT GIVEN GIFTS TO ANY OF THESE PERSONS EARLIER OR IN SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. HENCE THE CONCEPT OF RECIPROCAT ION IS TOTALLY LACKING IN THE INSTANT CASE. IT IS ARGU ED THAT OUT OF INDEBTEDNESS TO SH. DINESH JAINS FATHER THE GIFTS WERE GIVEN. BUT NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE PRODUCED H OW THESE TWO DONORS WERE INDEBTED TO FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO GIVE LAKH OF RUPEES ALSO LACKING IN THIS CASE. MERE FACT THAT T HE AMOUNTS WERE ROUTED THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT IPSE FACTOR PROVES THE CREDITABILITY OF THE DONORS BEYOND DOUBT. TO GIVE LAKHS OF RUPEES AS GIFTS TO NEIGHBO URS THE PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH CRORES OF RUPEES HAVING INCOME OF SUBSTANTIAL NATURE. NO SUCH CONFIRMATIONS ARE FORTHCOMING TO ESTABLISH THE FINA NCIAL ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 5 SOUNDNESS OF THESE TWO DONORS. ANOTHER FACT TO BE SEEN HERE IS NEITHER THE DONORS GIVEN GIFTS TO OTHERS NO R THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFTS FROM OTHER CLOSE RELATIONS. IT ONLY FRUCTIFIES THE BELIEF THAT THE GIFTS ARE NOTHI NG BUT ASSESSEES OWN INCOME WHICH ARE PLOUGHED BACK AS GIFTS THROUGH OTHER PERSONS. BY REFERRED TO THE VA RIOUS DECISIONS REPORTED AT 109 ITD 288, 165 TAXMAN 505, 270 ITR 368 AND 292 ITR 552, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GIFTS ARE NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN MONEY RECEIVED BACK UNDER THE GUISE OF GIFTS FROM UNKNOWN PERSONS. IN THE CASE OF ANIL KU MAR 292 ITR 552, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS THE FINANCIAL CAP ACITY OF DONOR. IN THE CASE OF CHAIN SUKH RATHI 270 ITR 36 8, ALTHOUGH GIFT WAS GIVEN BY FATHER TO THE SON, STILL IT IS HELD THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OCCASION. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FORTI FIED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT CONSISTENT LY THE COURTS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT APART FROM IDENT ITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS OF VITAL ISSUE IN GIFTS. UNLESS OC CASION AND RELATIONSHIP IS ESTABLISHED, THE GIFTS CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF FAMILY DETAIL S IT CAN BE SEEN THAT A NUMBER OF CLOSE RELATIONS ARE AVAILABLE BUT NONE OF THEM HAD GIFTED ANY SUMS TO T HE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE COULD RECEIVE SUBSTANT IAL AMOUNTS AS GIFTS FROM A REMOTELY CONNECTED PERSONS. ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT CONFIRM TO THE FACT THAT HE KNEW THE DONORS INTIMATELY. THIS TYPE OF ONE-SIDED GIFTS OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OCCASION FROM RELATIVELY UNKNOWN PERSONS IN SUCCESS IVE YEARS DEFIES ANY AMOUNT OF LOGIC. AS DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARAS THE WHOLE TRANSACTION IS DESIGNED T O SHOW HUGE AMOUNTS AS GIFTS WITHOUT ANY LIABILITY OF PAYING TAXES. THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNE D AR BY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL, MUCH LESS A COGENT MATERI AL SO AS TO PERSUADE US TO DEVIATE FROM THE ALLEGED FINDING. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT BOGUS GIFTS. IN TH E RESULT, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY ALL THE ASSESSEES WITH REGARD TO GIFTS IN VARIOUS YEARS, ARE BEING DISMISS ED. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.1010 AT `75,66,441/- WHICH WAS 15 0% OF THE TAX ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 6 SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. ON APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A), VI DE ORDER DATED 23.12.2010, SUSTAINED THE PENALTY AT 100% OF THE TA X SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. BOTH THE PARTIES, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE REVENUE, VIDE ITA NO. 1350/DEL/2011 IS IN APPEAL FOR REDUCTION OF THE PENALTY FROM 150% TO 10 0% WHILE THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITA NO.1092/DEL/2011, IS IN APPEAL A GAINST THE PENALTY SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AT 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT T O BE EVADED. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL ARGUED AT LENGTH. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS SONS HAD RECEIVED THE GIFTS FROM SHRI NARESH JAIN AND SHRI A NIL JAIN. THAT THE FAMILIES OF SHRI NARESH JAIN AND SHRI ANIL JAIN AND THE ASSESSEES FAMILY ARE KNOWN TO EACH OTHER SINCE THEIR FATHERS TIME. AT PRESENT ALSO, SHRI NARESH JAIN AND SHRI ANIL JAIN ARE NEIGHBOURS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE CHILDHOOD FRIENDS. THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF CONFIRMATION, AFFIDAVI T, DECLARATION OF GIFTS, INCOME TAX RETURNS AND BALANCE SHEETS OF THE DONORS . THAT BOTH THE DONORS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHI CH THEY HAVE AFFIRMED THE GIFTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI NARESH JAIN FOR AY 2000-01 BEFORE DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80HH AND 80HHC WAS `1.29 CRORES. IT WAS IN ADDITION TO SHARE OF PROFIT FROM THE FIRM WHICH WAS EXEMPT. THAT SHRI NARESH JAIN H AD SEVERAL HOUSE PROPERTIES FROM WHICH THERE WAS A RENTAL INCOME OF `11,33,000/-. THAT HE HAD ACCOUNTS WITH SEVERAL BANKS AND INTEREST FRO M BANK WAS `19.17 LAKHS. THAT HIS NET WORTH AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2000 EVEN AFTER MAKING THE GIFTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS `9.91 CRORES AND HE WAS HAVING BANK DEPOSITS IN THE FORM OF FDRS WAS `5.40 CRORES. SIMILAR WERE THE FACTS RELATING TO SHRI ANIL JAIN. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHA RGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GIFTS BECAUSE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR , CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 7 THE DONOR AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS DULY ESTABLISHED. HE POINTED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED TO GIVE LAKHS OF RUPEES AS GIFTS TO NEIGH BOURS THE PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH CRORES OF RUPEES HAVING INCO ME OF SUBSTANTIAL NATURE. NO SUCH CONFIRMATIONS ARE FORTHCOMING TO E STABLISH THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS OF THESE TWO DONORS. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE ITAT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ITAT WAS OF THE BELIEF THAT HAD THE WORTH OF THE DONORS IN CRORES AND SUBSTANTIAL INCOM E IN THEIR HANDS, THE GIFTS COULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE F INANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONORS IS IN CRORES AND THEIR INCOME IS ALSO IN CRORES AND THESE EVIDENCES WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS ITAT. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE ITAT ON WHICH THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY IS BASED UPON INCORRECT FACTS. HOWEVER, WHEN A QUERY WAS ASKED BY THE BENCH WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL OR THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL TH AT, UNFORTUNATELY, NOT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IN ANY CASE, THE DISPUTE BEF ORE THE ITAT IS WITH REGARD TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) I.E., WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE GUILTY OF THE CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HE STATED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MINOR SON S HAD RECEIVED THE GIFTS BY CHEQUE AND HE HAD PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATIO N OF THE DONOR, AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR, DECLARATION OF GIFT, BANK A CCOUNT OF THE DONOR, INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE DONOR AND MOREOVER, THE DO NORS THEMSELVES APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAVE AFFI RMED HAVING GIVEN THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MINOR SONS. THERE FORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENES S OF THE GIFT, AND WHICH IS ALSO UPHELD BY THE ITAT, THOUGH ON INCORRE CT APPRECIATION OF FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILT Y OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS SO AS TO SADDLE WITH THE LIA BILITY OF PENALTY UNDER ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 8 SECTION 271(1)(C). IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (S C). (II) CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (S C). (III) WOODWARD GOVERNORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT [2 002] 253 ITR 745 (DEL). (IV) CIT VS.. BALBIR SINGH [2008] 304 ITR 125 (P&H ). (V) A. RAJENDRAN VS. ACIT 134 TTJ 498 (CHENNAI). (VI) ACIT VS. KAMLESH PAL & OTHERS ITA NO.3025/DEL /2011 ORDER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2013 (ITAT, DELHI BENCH). (VII) MITER SAIN (HUF) VS. ITO ITA NO.2856 TO 2858 /DEL/2007 AND 4416 TO 4419/DEL/2010, ORDER DATED 27.08.2012. 10. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN QUANTUM AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT HAS CONSID ERED ALL THE FACTS IN DETAIL AND HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E GIFTS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BOGUS GIFTS. THE ORDER OF THE ITA T HAS BECOME FINAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL OR MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST SUCH ORDER. SHE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND IS MINOR SONS HAVE RECEIVED HUGE SUMS OF MONEY AS GIFTS YEAR AFTER YEAR. THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM PERSO NS WHO ARE NOT RELATIVES, CLAIMED TO BE JUST NEIGHBOURS. IT IS IM PROBABLE THAT NEIGHBOURS WOULD GIFT HUGE SUMS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SONS THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC OCCASION AND WITHOUT ANY RECIP ROCATION OF THE GIFTS FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THEM. SHE, THEREFORE, SUBMITT ED THAT ON THESE FACTS, THE ITAT HAD RIGHTLY HELD THE GIFTS AS BOGUS GIFTS AND THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE PENALTY AT 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THAT EXTENT NEEDS MODIFICATI ON AND THE PENALTY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AT 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AS WAS ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 9 ORIGINALLY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUP PORT OF THIS CONTENTION, SHE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD. VS. ITO [2014] 032 ITR (T RIB) 0343 (ITAT- DEL). (II) DCIT VS. JUBILANT ENPRO P.LTD. [2014] 032 ITR (TRIB) 0702 (ITAT- DEL). (III) CIT VS. SPLENDER CONSTRUCTION [2013] 352 ITR 0588 (DEL). (IV) CHADHA SUGARS P.LTD. VS. ACIT [2012] 017 ITR (TRIB) 0316 (ITAT- DEL). (V) ACIT VS. KANCHENJUNGA ADVERTISING P.LTD. [2011 ] 010 ITR (TRIB) 0649 (ITAT-DEL). (VI) CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P.LTD. [2010] 327 ITR 0510 (DEL). (VII) CIT VS. ESCORT FINANCE LTD. [2010] 328 ITR 0 044 (DEL). (VIII) CIT VS. HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY LTD. [2010] 328 ITR 0053 (DELHI). (IX) AJAY JAIN VS. ACIT [2013] 021 ITR (TRIB) 0041 (ITAT-DELHI). (X) ACIT VS. DINESH GOEL [2011] 010 ITR 0330 (ITAT -DELHI). (XI) MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) P.LTD. VS. DCIT [2011] 008 ITR (TRIB) 0058. 11. IN THE REJOINDER, IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL THAT THERE IS NO LAW THAT GIFT CAN BE GIVEN ONLY BY THE PERSONS R ELATED BY BLOOD. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE FAMILY OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE FAMILY OF THE DONORS ARE KNOWN TO EACH OTHER FROM D ECADES AND FROM THE TIME OF THEIR PARENTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONT ENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) CIT VS. PADAM SINGH CHOUHAN [2009] 315 ITR 433 (RAJ). (II) CIT VS. R.S. SIBAL [2004] 269 ITR 429 (DEL). (III) CIT VS. MS. MAYAWATI [2011] 338 ITR 563 (DEL HI). ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 10 12. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS ARE INDEPENDENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DESPITE T HE CONFIRMATION OF GIFTS BY THE ITAT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I N THE APPEAL AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CL AIM AND JUSTIFY THAT IT HAS DULY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF THE DONOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CO NTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (S C). (II) CIT, MADRAS VS. KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS [1972 ] 83 ITR 369 (SC). (III) WOODWARD GOVERNORS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT [2 002] 253 ITR 745 (DEL). 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. TH E FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SHRI NARESH JAIN HAD GIVEN THE GIFT OF `42 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE AND `15 LAKHS TO SHRI NAMIT JAIN, MINO R SON OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI ANIL JAIN HAD GIVEN THE GIFT OF `45 LAKHS TO SHRI NAMIT JAIN, MINOR SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND `50 LAKHS TO SH RI MAYANK JAIN, MINOR SON OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE DONOR AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ACCORD INGLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF `1,52,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS BY ITAT. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AR E INDEPENDENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, IN THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CAN INDEPENDENTLY ARGUE THAT IT HAS DU LY DISCHARGED THE ONUS LAY UPON IT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. WE F IND THAT THIS ASPECT WAS CONSIDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS (SUPRA) WHEREIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 11 THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUSTAINED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BUT THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C) WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, THESE ADDITIONS, BY THEMSELVES, COULD NOT LEAD TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR THAT IT HAD FURNISHED DELIBERATELY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF MYSORE WHICH WAS REJECTED AND THE REVENUES APPEAL TO THE APEX COURT WAS ALSO DISMISSED. WHILE DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL, THEIR LORDSHIPS AT PAGE 376 AND 377 OF ITR 83 HELD AS UNDER:- NO DOUBT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FOR COMPUTING THE TAX MAY BE A GOOD ITEM OF EVIDENCE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT T HAT IN THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE REASONS FOR ADDING TH E DISPUTED AMOUNTS IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E HAVE BEEN ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER O F ASSESSMENT AND THAT THEY NEED NOT BE REPEATED AGAIN . THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE ALREA DY POINTED OUT, HAS MADE ONLY A GUESS-WORK. THAT CLEA RLY SHOWS THAT EXCEPT THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR INCLUDING THE DISPUTED ITEMS I N THE TOTAL INCOME, THE DEPARTMENT HAD NO OTHER MATER IAL OR EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT COULD BE REASONABLY INFER RED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR HAD DELIBERATELY FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FOR ALL THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, IT FOLLOWS THAT TH ERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMIS SED. AS THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT APPEARED, THERE WILL BE N O ORDER AS TO COSTS. 14. THOUGH THE ABOVE DECISION IS FOUR DECADES OLD B UT TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED THAT THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 12 ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION, THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA), AFTER REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS (SUPRA), HELD AT PA GE 547 PARAGRAPH 62 AS UNDER:- THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NA TURE AND, THUS, THE BURDEN LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOM E. SINCE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS VA RIES FROM THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, A FINDING I N AN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS INCOME CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED, THOUGH A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CONSTITUTES GO OD EVIDENCE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THUS, THE AUTHORITIES MUST CONSIDER TH E MATTER AFRESH AS THE QUESTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE (SEE ANANTHARAM VEERASINGHAIAH AND CO. V. CIT [1980] SUPP SCC 13). (EMPHASIS BY UNDERLINING SUPPLIED BY US) 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS OF HONBLE A PEX COURT, WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CAS E AFRESH DESPITE THE ADDITIONS HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE QUANTUM PROC EEDINGS FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING WHETHER THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS JUSTIFIED. 16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- 6. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CORRECT NESS OF THE GIFT TRANSACTION IN THE NAME OF HIS MINOR SO NS. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS HAS HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION APPENDED 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ENTIRELY INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASS ESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S WHILE FILING RETURNS. OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF 271(1)(C) DEALS WITH EXPLANATION INDICATED THAT THE SAID ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 13 SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESS ENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I HOLD THAT BY SHOWING ITS TAXABLE INCOME AS GIFTS AND CLAIMING IT TO BE EXEMP T IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND HAS CONCEALED PARTICULAR S OF ITS INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.1,52,00,000/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND THAT PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THIS CASE. 17. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN ITS TAXABLE INCOME AS GIFTS AND CLAIMING IT TO BE E XEMPT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AMOUNTING TO `1,52,00,000/-. BEFORE PROCEED INGS TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRO DUCTS (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. IN THE ABOVE DECISION , THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MEANING OF THE P HRASE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HELD AT PA GES 165 & 166 OF 322 ITR AS UNDER:- WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE MENS REA. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETH ER IN THIS CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN WEBSTERS DICTIONARY, T HE WORD INACCURATE HAS BEEN DEFINED AS : NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN TH E DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCUR ATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 14 ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT O R ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDI NG THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS TRIED TO BE SUGGESTED THAT SECTION 14A OF TH E ACT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE SHARES DID NOT FORM THE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, REITERATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY REACHED TH E CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS KNOWING THAT THEY ARE INCORREC T; IT AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS TRIED TO BE ARGUED THAT THE FALSEHOOD IN ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITH ER OF THE TWO FORMS; (I) AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BE SUPPRE SSED FRAUDULENTLY; (II) AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FA LSELY (OR IN AN EXAGGERATED AMOUNT) CLAIMED, AND BOTH TYP ES ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME AND, THEREFORE , BOTH TYPES AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ONES INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPEN DITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, VIEWED AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UP TO TH E AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NO T. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NO T ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT , IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESS EE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. (EMPHASIS BY UNDERLINING SUPPLIED BY US) 18. FROM THE ABOVE DECISION, IT WOULD BE EVIDENT TH AT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME IF THE DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 15 INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. LET US EXAMINE TH E FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WHETHER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, ERRONE OUS OR FALSE. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS MINOR SONS TOGETHER RECEIVED THE GIFT OF `1,52,00,000/- FROM S HRI NARESH JAIN AND SHRI ANIL JAIN. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS :- (A) IN RESPECT OF GIFT FROM SHRI NARESH JAIN :- (I) COPY OF PAN CARD (II) AFFIDAVIT (III) CONFIRMATION (IV) GIFT LETTER (V) AFFIDAVIT (VI) GIFT LETTER (VII) CONFIRMATION (VIII) DECLARATION OF GIFT (IX) COPY OF AO'S ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y. 1997-98 (X) ITR FOR A.Y. 1998-99 (XI) ITR FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 (XII) INTIMATION U/S 143(1), FOR A.Y. 99-2000 (XIII) BANK STATEMENT OF NAVKAR ENTERPRISES (XIV) BANK ACCOUNT (XV) A.Y. 2000-01 ITR (XVI) CORRESPONDENCE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2000-01 (XVII) COPY OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2000-01 (XVIII) AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 .3.2000 OF NAVKAR ENTERPRISES (XIX) AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3 .2000 OF FASHION EMPORIUM (XX) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR A.Y. 2000-01 (XXI) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1), DT. 6.11.2002 FO R A.Y. 2000-01 ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 16 (XXII) LETTER FOR OUTSTANDING DEMAND DT. 22.1.2001 (XXIII) ITR FOR A.Y. 2001-02 (XXIV) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF FASHION EMPORIUM FO R THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2001 (XXV) CORRESPONDENCE WITH AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 (XXVI) COPY OF AO'S ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2001- 02 (B) IN RESPECT OF GIFT FROM SHRI ANIL JAIN :- (I) AFFIDAVIT (II) CONFIRMATION (III) GIFT LETTER (IV) AFFIDAVIT (V) GIFT LETTER (VI) CONFIRMATION (VII) BANK STATEMENT (VIII) ITR FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 (IX) ITR FOR A.Y. 2000-01 (X) BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2000 (XI) BANK STATEMENTS (XII) DOCUMENTS RELATED TO MANIDHANI EXPORTS IN WHI CH ANIL JAIN IS PARTNER - PARTNERSHIP DEED - ITR WITH BALANCE SHEET FOR AY 1999-2000 - BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2000 - ITR WITH BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2002-03 - ITR WITH BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2003-04 - ITR WITH BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2005-06 (XIII) AO'S ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR AY 1996-97 (XIV) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 96-97 (XV) BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.96 (XVI) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 1998-99 ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 17 (XVII) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 99-2000 (XVIII) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 2000-01 WITH I TR ETC (XIX) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 2002-03 WITH ITR ETC (XX) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 2003-04 WITH ITR ETC (XXI) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) FOR AY 2005-06 WITH ITR ETC 19. TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLA IM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SHRI NARESH J AIN AND SHRI ANIL JAIN. BOTH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. BOTH OF THEM HAVE AFFIRM ED HAVING GIVEN GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE OR HIS MINOR SONS AND HAVE AL SO EXPLAINED THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THEIR STATEMEN TS. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARESH JAIN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON 1 ST MAY, 2007 READS AS UNDER:- QUESTION 1 : PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF ? ANSWER 1 : I AM NARESH JAIN S/O SHRI SHORI LAL JA IN HAVING PAN AAIPJ3097J. QUESTION 2 : WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES OF INCOME? ANSWER 2 : I DERIVE INCOME FROM THESE PROPERTIES 1. E-39 KAMLA NAGAR 2. 6929 SUBJI MANDI 3. 2216 H.S. ROAD, KAROL BAGH I HAVE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS PROP. OF M/S FASHION EMPORIUM 65 JANPATH BESIDES INCOME FROM FDR & SAVINGS A/C. I AM ALSO PROP. OF M/S NAVKAR ENTERPR ISES. QUESTION 3 : DO YOU ASSESSED TO TAX? ANSWER 3 : I AM ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ACIT CIRCLE 31(1) NEW DELHI. QUESTION 4 : HAVE YOU FILED RETURN OF INCOME UP T O DATE INCLUDING FOR AY 1999-2000 TO AY 2004-05. ANSWER 4 : YES, I AM SUBMITTING THE COPY OF RETUR NS FILED ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME. QUESTION 5 : PLEASE GIVE DETAILS OF ALL YOUR BANK A/CS? ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 18 ANSWER 5 : I HAVE FOLLOWING BANK A/CS: 1. SB A/C CITI BANK CP ND 5-7008-01-006 2. PNB SUBJI MANDI DELHI SB A/C 113848 3. PNB SUBJI MANDI DELHI SB A/C NO.113512 4. BOB KAMLA NAGAR SB A/C 10299 5. LAXMI VILAS BANK, JANPATH SB 19729 6. CBI JANPATH A/C NO.32758 (SB A/C) 7. NEDUNGADI BANK 2640 (MERGED WITH PNB) KAROL BAGH 8. PNB KAROL BAGH SB 2640 COPIES OF ALL BANK STATEMENTS ARE SUBMITTED. QUESTION 6 : DO YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS DEALINGS WIT H SHRI DINESH JAIN, 22A, RAJPUR ROAD, DELHI? ANSWER 6 : NO QUESTION 7 : DO YOU KNOW SHRI DINESH JAIN PERSONA LLY? ANSWER 7 : YES. I KNOW SH. DINESH JAIN & ALL HIS FAMILY MEMBERS RIGHT FROM MY CHILDHOOD. QUESTION 8 : HAVE YOU EVER MADE GIFT TO SHRI DINE SH JAIN? ANSWER 8 : NO. I HAVE NOT MADE GIFT TO DINESH JA IN BUT I ALSO MADE GIFT TO HIS SON NAMIT JAIN. IN FACT A GIFT OF RS.42 LACS WAS GIVEN TO SH. DINESH JAIN ON 2.12.99 BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON MY SAVING BANK CITI BANK AND, A GIF T OF RS.15 LAC WAS MADE TO NAMIT JAIN, MINOR SON OF DINESH JAIN. QUESTION 9 : WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF GIVEN GIFT? ANSWER 9 : GIFT TO NAMIT JAIN WAS MADE BY CHEQUE DRAWN FROM THE BOOKS OF NAVKAR ENTERPRISES WHERE I AM PROP. AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO MY DRAWING A/C AS PER THE COPIES OF A/C SUBMITTED. GIFT TO SH. DINES H JAIN WAS MADE BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON MY SAVING BANK WITH CIT I BANK AS PER COPY OF BANK A/C SUBMITTED. THE CREDIT S IN THE BANK BEFORE MAKING GIFT ARE TRANSFER FROM MY PR OP. CONCERN NAMELY M/S NAVKAR ENTERPRISES & M/S FASHION EMPORIUM BESIDES ENCASHMENT OF MULTI DEPOSIT FDRS FROM THE SAME BANK. QUESTION 10 : WHY YOU CHOOSE TO GIFT SH. DINESH J AIN AND ONE OF HIS CHILDREN NAMIT JAIN? ANSWER 10 : BECAUSE MY FATHER WAS INDEBTED TO THE PARENTS OF SH. DINESH JAIN WHO HAD HELPED MY FATHER IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS AND OTHERWISE ALSO HE HAS EXTENDED FINANCIAL HELP IN 1961-62 WHEN I WAS A ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 19 CHILD. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS RESPECT & GRATITUDE I MADE GIFT TO SH. DINESH JAIN & HIS SON. MY ELDER BROTHE R HAVE ALSO MADE SIMILAR GIFT TO THE FAMILY OF SH. DINESH JAIN. QUESTION 11 : HAVE YOU EVER MADE GIFT TO ANYBODY ELSE? ANSWER 11 : NO. QUESTION 12 : HAVE YOU EVER MADE GIFT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE PERIOD? ANSWER 12 : NO QUESTION 13 : DID YOU OR FAMILY MEMBER RECEIVE AN Y CASH OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION IN LIEU OF THE ABOV E GIFT? ANSWER 13 : NO QUESTION 14 : YOU ACCEPTED THAT GIFT WAS MADE TO DINESH JAIN AND HIS SON, BUT HOW VERBALLY OR OTHERW ISE? ANSWER 14 : AN AFFIDAVIT, GIFT LETTER AS CONFIRMA TION THEREOF WAS GIVEN AND GIFT WAS ACCEPTED BY SH. DINE SH JAIN. 20. FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARESH JAIN, I T IS EVIDENT THAT SHRI NARESH JAIN IS THE PROPRIETOR OF TWO ENTERPRIS ES VIZ., M/S FASHION EMPORIUM AND M/S NAVKAR ENTERPRISES. BESIDES INCOM E FROM PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS, HE DERIVES INCOME FROM FDR S AND ALSO RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE IS ASSESSED TO INCO ME TAX YEAR AFTER YEAR AND SUBMITTED THE COPY OF HIS INCOME TAX RETUR N ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE MAINT AINED BANK ACCOUNTS WITH SEVERAL BANKS, DETAILS OF WHICH IS GI VEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE EXPLAINED HOW HE KNEW THE FAMILY OF TH E ASSESSEE I.E. SHRI DINESH JAIN. HE AFFIRMED THE GIFT GIVEN BY HIM TO THE MINOR SONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT AND THE REASON FOR GIVING THE GIFT TO ASSESSEES SONS. THUS, THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT HIS SONS RECEIVED THE GIFT FR OM SHRI NARESH JAIN IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF SHRI NARESH JAIN. THAT FROM THE COMPU TATION OF SHRI NARESH JAIN FOR AY 2000-01, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM WITH THE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 20 ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE RECORDING OF HIS STATE MENT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE HAD RENTAL INCOME FROM SEVERAL PROPERTIES W HICH IN TOTAL AMOUNTED TO `11.33 LAKHS. HE HAD DISCLOSED THE INC OME FROM PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S FASHION EMPORIUM AND M/S NAVKAR ENTERPRISES. HE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTEREST INCOME FROM VARIOUS FDRS WHICH IN TOTAL AMOUNTED TO `19.17 LAKHS. THUS , THE FACTS STATED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ALSO SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR AY 2000-01. HE HAD ALSO GIVEN TWO SEPARATE AFFIDAVITS AFFIRMING BOTH THE GIFTS GIVEN TO THE MINOR SONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH READ AS UNDER:- I, NARESH JAIN S/O LATE SH. SHORI LAL JAIN R/O 39- E, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AS UND ER: 1. THAT I MADE A GIFT OF RS.15,00,000/- (RUPEES FIF TEEN LAKHS ONLY) TO MR. NAMIT JAIN S/O SH. DINESH JAIN R /O 22, PAAMHOUSE RAJPURA ROAD CIVIL LINES, DELHI ON 04/09/ 99 VIDE CHEQUE NO.695036 DT 04.09.99 DRAWN ON CITI BAN K N.A., DELHI. 2. THAT THE ABOVE SAID GIFT IS ABSOLUTE AND IRREVOCABLE. THAT I AM ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND MY PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. IS. I, NARESH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI SHORI LAL JAIN R/O 39 -E, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI 110 007, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AS UNDER: 1. THAT I MADE A GIFT OF RS.42,00,000/- (RUPEES FOU RTY TWO LAKHS ONLY) TO MR. DINESH JAIN S/O SHRI P.C. JA IN R/O UNIT NO.4, 22A, RAJPUR ROAD, DELHI ON 02.12.99 VIDE CHEQUE NO.533510 DATED 02.12.99 DRAWN ON CITI BANK, N.A., DELHI. 2. THAT THE ABOVE SAID GIFT IS ABSOLUTE AND IRREVOCABLE. 3. THAT I AM ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND MY PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IS AAIPJ 3097 J. ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 21 21. NONE OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE GIFT AND ALSO THE STATEM ENT OF SHRI NARESH JAIN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, FALSE OR ERRONEOUS. 22. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL JA IN WHICH READS AS UNDER:- QUES 1. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF. ANS. I AM ANIL JAIN S/O LATE SHRI SHORI LAL JAIN R /O 22A, RAJPURA ROAD, DELHI. I AM PRODUCING MY PAN CARD FO R MY IDENTITY. QUES 2. WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES OF INCOME? ANS. I GET INCOME FROM PROPERTY, BUSINESS & INTERES T FROM BANK DEPOSITS & SAVING BANK A/C. QUES 3. ARE YOU ASSESSED TO TAX. IF YES, GIVE DETA ILS. ANS. I AM ASSESSED TO TAX WITH I.T.O. WARD 20(1), N EW DELHI PAN AAFPJ3129A. QUES 4. SINCE WHEN YOU ARE IN BUSINESS OR STARTED EARNING? ANS. SINCE MORE THAN 17 YEARS AS PROPRIETOR AND PRI OR TO THAT SINCE 1975 I WAS IN BUSINESS OF READYMADE GARMENTS AT JANPATH WITH MY FATHER (EXPIRED). I BECOME PARTNER IN MANIDHARI EXPORTS, OTHER PARTNER IS MY WIFE SMT. RASHMI JAIN SINCE 1994. QUES 5. PLEASE GIVE PARTICULAR OF FIRM, COMPANIES O R PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN WHERE YOU ARE INTERESTED AS PROPRIETOR, PARTNER, DIRECTOR ETC. ANS. I AM PROPRIETOR OF M/S STYLEWEARS 91 JANPATH MARKET, NEW DELHI. I AM ALSO PARTNER IN THE M/S MANIDHARI EXPORTS W109 KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI. I AM AL SO DIRECTOR IN M/S PARAMOUNT TOWN PLANNERS PVT.LTD. G- 36 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI (1 ST FLOOR) SINCE 1996-97 APPROX. QUES 6. DO YOU MAINTAIN BANK A/C OR BANK A/CS AND IF SO PLEASE GIVE DETAILS. ANS. I HAVE FOLLOWING BANK A/C MAINTAINED IN MY NAM E AND ARE BEING OPERATED BY ME. 1. BANK OF BARODA, SHAKTI NAGAR ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 22 S.B. A/C 102996 2. CITI BANK JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLA CE, NEW DELHI S.B. A/C 5700662006 3. CANARA BANK, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI (D-130) NO.17849 SAVING BANK A/C. 4. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, 70 JANPATH, NEW DELHI SB A/C NO.35474 I WILL FURNISH COPIES OF ALL BANK STATEMENTS AS ASK ED, FOR IN A DAY OR SO POSSIBLE. QUES 7. HAVE YOU FILED YOUR RETURNS OF INCOME FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO AY 2004-05, IF SO PLEASE FURNISH EVIDENCE. ANS. YES I HAVE FILED MY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A BOVE PERIOD, I PRODUCE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SAME. QUES 8. DO YOU KNOW MR. DINESH JAIN. IF YES, SINCE WHEN AND HOW. PLEASE ALSO SPECIFICALLY STATE WHAT IS YOUR BUSINESS/COMMUNITY RELATIONS? ANS. YES I KNOW PERSONALLY TO MR./SHRI DINESH JAIN R/O 22A, RAJPURA ROAD, DELHI FOR THE LAST SAY 30 YEARS FROM THE TIME OF MY FATHER AND BEFORE MY MARRIAGE. HE I S A VERY CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE AND HE HAPPENS TO RESIDE IN THE SAME COMPLEX AT CIVIL LINES, DELHI WHERE I AM RESIDING. QUES 9. HOW OFTEN YOU MEET EACH OTHER, PLEASE STATE. ANS. WE PRACTICALLY MEET EVERYDAY. WE GO TO MORNIN G WALK TOGETHER. WE ALSO TOGETHER GO TO OUR RESPECTE D GURUJI ACHARYA BHAGWAN SHRI 1008 GIAN CHAND JI MAHARAJ (ARIHANT MARGI JAIN SANGH). APART FROM ABO VE, WE HAVE COMMUNITY RELATION AND ALSO BECAUSE HIS FATHER I.E. FATHER OF SHRI DINESH JAIN NAMELY SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN (NOW LATE) HELPED MY FATHER LATE SHRI S. L. JAIN IN ESTABLISHING BUSINESS IN 1960S. QUES 10. HAVE YOU ANY BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH SHRI DINESH JAIN OR HIS CHILDREN? ANS. NO. NOT AT ALL. QUES 11. HAVE YOU EVERY RECEIVED ANY GIFT FROM SH. DINESH CHAND JAIN OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN T HE LAST SIX-SEVEN YEARS. ANS. NO ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 23 QUES 12. HAVE YOU EVERY GIVEN OR MADE ANY GIFT TO SHRI DINESH JAIN, REFERRED TO ABOVE, OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE LAST SIX OR SEVEN YEARS. IF YES, WH AT WAS THE OCCASION? ANS. YES I MADE GIFTS TO HIS THREE CHILDREN NAMELY MUDIT JAIN (NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS). MAYANK JAIN (NOW A GED ABOUT 17 YEARS) AND NAMIT JAIN (NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS) ON THE OCCASION OF COMPLETION OF MY 8 DAYS F AST DURING SAMVAT-SHRI PRAV AS PER JAIN RITUALS WHICH A RE CONSIDERD AS MOST SACRED DAYS. QUES 13. WHAT WAS THE COMPULSION AT THAT POINT OF TIME WHEN YOU MADE GIFTS TO THE CHILDREN OF SHRI DI NESH CHAND JAIN? ANS. THERE WAS NO COMPULSION. IT WAS A VOLUNTARY G IFTS MADE TO CHILDREN WITH TYAG BHAWNA AND ALSO TO REP AY A DEBT OF SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN FATHER OF DINESH CHAND JAIN WHO HELPED MY FATHER IN THE ESTABLISHMEN T IN BUSINESS IN SIXTIES. MY FATHER DESIRE THAT THE GIFT SHOULD BE MADE TO GRAND CHILDREN OF SHRI PRAKASH CH AND JAIN, WHICH I IMMEDIATELY AGREED AND MADE GIFTS BY CHEQUES IN SEPT 1999 AS UNDER:- MUDIT JAIN RS.50 LACS MAYANK JAIN RS.50 LACS NAMIT JAIN RS.45 LACS QUES 14. DID YOU EXECUTE ANY GIFT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE DONEES REFERRED TO ABOVE? ANS. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE GIFT DEEDS WERE SIGNED BY ME AT DELHI AND IT WAS IN THE FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF GIFTS OR AFFIDAVIT, GIFT LETTER DULY ACCEPTED BY SHRI DINESH JAIN FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THE DONNES AND ALSO CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY ME FOR MAKING GIFTS. QUES 15. DO YOU MAINTAIN ANY PERSONAL ACCOUNT? ANS. NO ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM AND PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN MY NAME ARE PROPERLY REFLECTED IN MY RETURN OF INCOME WHERE IN THE INTEREST ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND FDR IS DECLARED AS WOULD BE NOTED FROM THE COMPUTATION SHE ET ENCLOSED WITH RETURN OF INCOME, THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE SUBMITTED. QUES 16. WHAT WAS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF MAKING GIFTS TO THE ABOVE DONEES? ANS. THE GIFTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES DRAWN ON MY SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITI BANK NEW DELHI. THE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 24 CREDITS IN MY ABOVE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED REALIZATION OF MULTI-DEPOSIT (FDRS) IN THE SAME BAN K AND OUT OF THESE PROCEEDS, THE CHEQUES ISSUED FOR CHEQU ES WERE CLEARED. I WAS HOLDING FDRS AND MULTI DEPOSIT OF MORE THAN 3 CRORES IN SAME BANK AND THAT I DECLARED INTEREST INCOME ON FDRS AND MULTI DEPOSITS AT RS.31,98,430 AND RS.18,83,845/- IN MY RETURN OF INC OME FOR AY 2000-01. QUES 17. WHAT WAS THE CONSIDERATION HAVE YOU RECEIVED BACK IN LIEU OF MAKING GIFTS OF SUBSTANTIA L AMOUNT OF MONEY? ANS. THE GIFTS WERE MADE AS EXPLAINED ON COMPLETION OF THE RITUALS I.E. PAST AND GIFTS WERE MADE OUT OF AF FECTION FOR THE FAMILY OF SH. DINESH JAIN. NO CASH IN RETU RN OF THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO OTHER CONSIDER ATION RECEIVED BY ME OR ANY OF MY FAMILY MEMBER FROM SHRI DINESH JAIN. QUES 18. PLEASE STATE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAVE MADE GIFTS TO ANY OTHER PERSON IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ANS. NO QUES 19. DO YOU HAVE ANY ABOUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF MR. DINESH JAIN. ANS. YES THIS FAMILY IS CARRY ON BUSINESS OF MANUFA CTURE AND SALE OF PAN MASALA UNDER BRAND NAME BEGUM ETC. FROM DELHI TO KANPUR. 23. FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL JAIN, IT IS EVI DENT THAT IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.2, HE STATED HIS SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH ARE INCOME FROM PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND INTEREST FROM BANK DEPOSITS. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.3, HE FURNISHED HIS INCOME TAX NUMBER. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.4, HE STATED THAT HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF READYMADE GARMENTS AT JANPATH SINCE 1975 AND AT PRESENT, HE I S PARTNER IN MANIDHARI EXPORTS. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.5, HE G AVE THE DETAILS OF HIS PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS WHICH IS OPERATING FROM JAN PATH MARKET, NEW DELHI AND ALSO THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS WHICH IS AT KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI. HE IS ALSO DIRECTOR IN ONE COMPANY. IN REPLY TO QU ESTION NO.6, HE GAVE THE DETAILS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. IN REPLY TO QUES TION NO.7, HE STATED THAT HE HAD FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR AY 1999 -2000 TO 2004-05 AND SUPPLIED THE COPY OF SUCH RETURNS OF INCOME. I N REPLY TO QUESTION ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 25 NO.8, HE EXPLAINED HOW HE KNEW SHRI DINESH JAIN. H E POINTED OUT THAT HE IS KNOWN TO SHRI DINESH JAIN SINCE LAST THIRTY Y EARS I.E. FROM THE TIME OF HIS FATHER. SHRI DINESH JAIN IS HIS CLOSE FRIEN D AND RESIDES IN THE SAME COMPLEX AT CIVIL LINES IN WHICH HE IS RESIDING . IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.9, HE STATED THAT THEY PRACTICALLY MEET EVERY DAY, GO TO MORNING WALK TOGETHER AND ALSO GO TO THEIR GURUJI T OGETHER. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.12, HE GAVE THE DETAILS OF THE GIFT GIV EN BY HIM TO THE MINOR SONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY TO QUESTION N O.14, HE STATED THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE GIFT, GIFT DEED WAS SIGNED BY HIM AND AFFIDAVIT ETC. WERE ALSO GIVEN BY HIM. NONE OF THE FACTS STATED I N THE ABOVE STATEMENT WERE FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS, INCORRECT OR FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY HIM IN THE FORM OF HIS COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR FOUR YEARS CORROBORATES THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HIM. FROM HIS INCOME TAX RE TURN, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HIS RENTAL INCOME WAS `12,52,335/-. HIS INCOM E FROM BANK INTEREST WAS `50,86,571/-, INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS EXEMPT AND HIS RETURNED INCOME WAS `64,58,000/-. FROM HIS BAL ANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2000, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HIS OPENING CAPITA L BALANCE WAS `11.73 CRORES, INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WAS `1.24 CRORES, TOTAL WITHDRAWAL INCLUDING THE WITHDRAWAL F OR GIFTS WAS `3.06 CRORES AND THE BALANCE CAPITAL AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2000 WAS `9.91 CRORES. FROM THE ASSETS SIDE, THERE IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY A T `1.55 CRORES, INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM `2.53 CRORES, SH ARES IN CERTAIN COMPANIES AT `2.50 CRORES AND FIXED DEPOSITS AT `5. 40 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING AT P AGE 8 PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER:- 6. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT; 1. GIFTS ARE GIVEN WITHOUT ANY OCCASION WHICH IS FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED BY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DINE SH ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 26 JAIN AS RECORDED U/S 132(4) WHERE HE ACCEPTS THAT T HERE WAS NO FUNCTION/OCCASION IN THE FAMILY. 2. GIFTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT NATURAL LOVE & AFFECTION WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE DO NORS STRANGELY DID NOT EVER GIVEN ANY GIFTS TO THEIR OWN RELATIVES, KITHS AND KIN. 3. MOST OF THE GIFTS ARE FROM PERSONS CONNECTED WIT H THE BUSINESS OR WERE IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE FAMIL Y OF THE SHRI DINESH JAIN. 4. DONORS HAD STRANGELY BORROWED FUNDS AND THEN GIVEN GIFTS OR THEIR CAPACITY IS ALSO NOT PROVED BE YOND REASONABLE DOUBT; 5. GIFTS ARE MADE AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITIES THAT ARE THEY ARE WITHOUT OCCASION AND ARE GIVEN IGNORIN G THEIR OWN RELATIVES. GIFTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO A NE IGHBOR OR AN OUTSIDER WHO IS ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY WEL L OFF AND THAT GIFTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY DONORS BY EXTINGUISHING THEIR OWN INCOME SOURCES OR ARE GIVEN AFTER TAKING LOANS. 6. IN MANY CASES LIKE THE CASE OF VIJENDRA AGRAWAL AND SHRI MAHENDRA JALAN NOT EVEN CONFIRMATIONS ARE THERE. 7. IN ALMOST ALL THE GIFTS THE CAPACITY ITSELF IS N OT PROVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE REVENUE BY PRODUC ING EVIDENCES CALLED FOR. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ONLY ONE CONCLUSION CAN B E DRAWN THAT THE GIFTS ARE NOT GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE. AFTER HOLDING THE GIFTS AS UNEXPLAINED THE AMOUNTS OF RS.1,52,00,000/- REPRESENTED BY THE GIFTS RECEIPT D URING THE YEAR ARE HEREBY TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE FACTS FURTHER SUGGEST FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS/CLAIM AND CONSEQUENTLY THE CONCEALMENT ON ASSESSEES PART FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO INITIATED. 24. THE FIRST GROUND WHY THE GIFT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT ANY OCC ASION. IN OUR OPINION, MERELY BECAUSE THE GIFT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT ANY OCCASION WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE GIFT IS NOT GENU INE. IT MAY BE ONLY ONE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 27 OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHILE CONSIDERING THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE GIFT. THE SECOND REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE DONORS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DONORS ARE CLOSE FAM ILY FRIENDS AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION REMA INS ONLY BETWEEN BLOOD RELATIONS AND NOT BETWEEN THE FRIENDS. THE T HIRD POINT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE GIFTS ARE GIVEN BY THE PERSONS WHO ARE CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OR WERE IN THE EMPL OYMENT OF THE FAMILY OF SHRI DINESH JAIN. THIS GROUND TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARESH JAIN AND SHRI ANIL JAIN. BOTH OF TH EM HAVE DENIED ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALS O SEEN THEIR COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR AY 2000-01. THERE IS NO SALARY INCOME FROM THE ASSESSEE OR NO BUSINESS INCOME FROM ANY BUSINES S IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS ALSO CONNECTED. SHRI NARESH JAIN HAD I NCOME FROM TWO PROPRIETORSHIP FIRMS WHILE SHRI ANIL JAIN HAS INCOM E FROM ONE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM AND ONE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IN T HE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INTEREST. THE FOURTH POI NT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE DONORS HAD STRANGELY BORROWED FUNDS AND THEN GIVEN GIFTS AND THEIR CAPACITY IS NOT PROVED B EYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. THIS POINT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S ALSO CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE CAP ACITY OF THE DONORS WAS IN CRORES. BOTH THE DONORS VIZ., SHRI NARESH J AIN AND SHRI ANIL JAIN HAD HUGE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BANK INTERE ST. THEIR FDRS ITSELF ARE WORTH IN CRORES APART FROM SUBSTANTIAL B USINESS INCOME. FROM WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THAT THE GIFT S HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS, WE DO NOT KNOW. THE FIFTH G ROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE GIFTS ARE AGAINST HUM AN PROBABILITIES. HERE, WE WOULD ONLY SAY THAT IT IS A MATTER OF OPIN ION. YES, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I.E., ONE FAMILY GIVING GIFT TO ANOTHE R FAMILY YEAR AFTER YEAR, IT CAN BE SAID TO BE AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILIT IES, BUT, IN OUR OPINION, THAT MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THE ASS ESSEE GUILTY OF ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 28 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS. IF A TRANSACTION LOOKS IMPROBABLE, THAT WOULD RAISE SUSP ICION AND WOULD REQUIRE DEEPER SCRUTINY IN THE MATTER. BUT, THAT I TSELF, WOULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVE SPECIALLY IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. I N POINT NO.6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT SHRI VIJENDRA AGRAWAL AND SHRI MAHENDRA JALAN HAVE NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMATION. WH EN THERE WAS NO GIFT FROM THESE TWO PERSONS IN AY 2000-01, THE QUES TION OF FURNISHING OF CONFIRMATIONS BY THEM IN 2000-01 COULD NOT ARISE. THE NEXT POINT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE CAPACIT Y OF THE DONORS WAS NOT PROVED. THIS POINT, HE HAS ALREADY TAKEN IN PA RAGRAPH 4 AND, WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE DONORS HAVE SUFFICIE NT CAPACITY, THEY HAD HUGE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME, INTEREST FROM FDRS AND THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 25. WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, T HE ABOVE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HAS BECOME FINAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT. H OWEVER, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KHODAY ES WARSA AND SONS (SUPRA), THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE HAVE EX AMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AFR ESH AND WE CLARIFY THAT OUR FINDING IS LIMITED TO AND RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAV E FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAVE CONCEALED THE INCOME SO AS TO MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) . HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) HAVE H ELD THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS VARIES FROM THAT IN AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS INCOME CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED I N PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HON BLE APEX COURT, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN T HE LIGHT OF THE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 29 DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIA NCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE DEFINED THE M EANING OF THE PHRASE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT HAVE HELD THAT IF THE D ETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE FOUND TO B E INCORRECT, ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, THEN ONLY IT CAN BE SAID THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 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, ERRONEOU S OR FALSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE GIFT BY DOUB TING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SO FAR AS ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDIN G THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE DONORS IS NOT PROVED IS CONCERNED, IN OUR OPINI ON, THAT FINDING WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND PROBABLY HAS BEEN ARRIVED A T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE DETAILS O F THE DONORS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM BY THE DONORS THEMSELVES, IN T HE FORM OF THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS, WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THE SOUND FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONORS WAS PROV ED FROM THEIR INCOME TAX RECORD. SO FAR AS THE GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTIONS IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE GE NUINENESS OF THE GIFTS ON THE GROUND OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IN OUR OPINION, WHAT IS HUMANLY PROBABLE IS CERTAINLY A MATTER OF OPINION A ND, THEREFORE, THE DENIAL OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF HUMAN PROBABILITY MAY BE JUSTIFIED, BUT, T HE SAME CANNOT THE BASIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C), SPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS WHICH IS FU RTHER FORTIFIED BY THE STATEMENTS OF THE DONORS. ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 30 26. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAVE CONCEALED THE INCOME SO AS TO MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE H AVE RELIED UPON THE RATIO OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY HONBL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KHODAY ESWARSA AND SONS (SUPRA), DILIP N. S HROFF (SUPRA) AND RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA). WE HAVE EXAMINED T HE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE THREE DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT. 27. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY MENTION THAT THE LEARNED CIT-DR HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT AND HONBLE HIGH COURTS, THE LIST OF WHICH IS GIVEN BY US IN PA RAGRAPH 10 ABOVE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE DECISIONS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS IN ALL THE CASES ARE DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE, NONE OF THE DECI SIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. MO REOVER, WE HAVE RELIED UPON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE THREE D ECISIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND NO CONTRARY DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IS POINTED OUT BEFORE US. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING IN DETAIL THE FACTS AND THE RATIO LAID D OWN IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR SO AS TO POINT OUT HO W THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 28. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY AT 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CANCE LLED. 29. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE TIM E OF HEARING BEFORE US THAT THE FACTS IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR S ARE SIMILAR AND THEREFORE, WHATEVER IS THE OUTCOME OF THEIR ARGUMEN TS FOR AY 2000-01, WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THERE FORE, FOR THE ITA-1350/D/2011 & 12 OTHERS 31 DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOVE FOR AY 2000-01, WE HOLD T HAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E., A Y 2001-02 TO 2005- 06, WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME IS CANCELLED. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A Y 1999-2000 IS REJECTED, FOR AY 2000-01 TO 2005-06 ARE ALLOWED; AN D, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2000-01 TO 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED . DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU ) )) ) (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL (G.D. AGRAWAL ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 26.09.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, SHRI DINESH JAIN, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, 19, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW NEW NEW NEW DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 001. 110 001. 110 001. 110 001. 2. RESPONDENT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL CIRCLE- -- -2, NEW DELHI. 2, NEW DELHI. 2, NEW DELHI. 2, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR