Sh. Rajesh Khandelwal, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Gwalior

ITA 20/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0638 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: Gift; Period of limitation; Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 20/AGRA/2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 RAJESH KHANDELWAL, VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, N-21/A PATEL NAGAR, GWALIOR. CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR. (AHVPK 3526 G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 02.05.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 03.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT IN A SUM OF RS .21,400/-. 2. THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER NOTED THAT THE CAPIT AL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CREDITED BY RS.75,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF ALL EGED GIFT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY MADE FEEBLE ATTEMPTS T O PROVE HIS CASE BY FILING GIFT ITA NO.20/AGRA/2013 2 DEED AND CONFIRMATION ETC., HOWEVER, UNABLE TO PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. THE ASSESSEE ULTIMATELY FILED REVISED RETURN ON 31. 01.2006 AND SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF ALLEGED GIFT. REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BE YOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A VALID REVISED R ETURN. THE ADDITION WAS MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR FAILURE TO PROVE THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACCORDINGLY INITIATED AND VIDE SEP ARATE ORDER, PENALTY WAS IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THE GIFT AS NOT GENUINE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINE GIFT, THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS FOUND JUSTIFIED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 3. NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FO R 02.05.2013 THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THE REGISTERED POST IS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS REFUSED TO ACCEPT. T HE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT NOTICE AMOUNTS TO SERVICE. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ANY MATERIAL, WE DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH ITA NO.20/AGRA/2013 3 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAKESH SURI, 331 ITR 4 58 HELD THAT SURRENDER OF INCOME SURRENDER UNDER COMPULSION BY REVENUE NO VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE PENALTY IMPOSED. HONBLE GUJRAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF LMP PRECISION ENGG. CO. LTD., VS. DCIT, 330 ITR 93, HEL D THAT REVISED RETURN AFTER SURVEY OPERATION SHOWED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IMP OSITION OF PENALTY VALID. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY CLAIMED GE NUINE GIFT AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE GIFT AMOUNT AND ADMITTED IT TO BE NOT A GENUINE GIFT. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DONOR BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, WHEN TH E ASSESSEE WAS CORNERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO PROVE THE GENUINE GIFT I N THE MATTER AND IT WAS ON FAILURE TO PROVE THE GIFT, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVIS ED RETURN ACCEPTING HIS OWN INCOME IN THE GARB OF GIFT. HOWEVER, REVISED RETURN WAS NO T VALIDLY FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE IT ACT. THEREFO RE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING PENALTY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- ITA NO.20/AGRA/2013 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY