Smt. Anu Nagpal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3214/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around the imposition of a penalty on Smt. Anu Nagpal by the Assessing Officer (AO) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concerning a gift received. The gift, amounting to Rs. 21 lakhs from Sri Raman Kumar Juneja, was initially accepted but later disbelieved by the AO due to perceived contradictions in the statements of the donor and the assessee. The penalty was contested in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which examined the validity of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified as the AO's disbelief was based on subjective opinion rather than concrete evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113631 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYANK AHUJA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3214/Del/2017, A.Y. 2001-02 Smt. Anu Nagpal M-134, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi PAN : ACTPN4363Q Vs. ACIT, Circle-23(1), New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Mayank Ahuja, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi confirming the imposition of penalty of Rs. 6,30,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It comes up that earlier in the first round of litigation the co-ordinate Bench in ITA no. 5582/Del/2013 dated 22.09.2016 had restored the issue of 3214/Del/2017 2 service of notice for initiating penalty proceedings to the files of Ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order wherein after considering the submissions of the assessee dated 23.03.2017, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the service of notice by affixture was valid as there was solemn affirmation by the Inspector of due service. 4. The Bench is of considered opinion that since assessee has not disputed that the address was incorrect or that he was not residing at the address, therefore, had no notice of the notices served by affixture, the presumption attached to official acts where done in due course, can be raised and the service has been considered to be proper. Thus, on that count assessee does not succeed. 5. However, what comes up from the matter on record, on merits is that assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 21 lakhs were received by her as a gift from Sri Raman Kumar Juneja whose own statement on oath was also recorded during the assessment proceedings. But Ld. AO finding contradictions in the statement of donor and also assessee disbelieved the gift. 6. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act do not indicate specifically as to if the same were initiated on account of concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars. The concluding of penalty order in para 4 is relevant where ld. AO mentions that the penalty is levied on the amount added for which ‘inaccurate particulars’ has been furnished. 3214/Del/2017 3 7. The Bench is of considered opinion that disbelieving a transaction on the basis of doubting of veracity of a witness cannot be a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars without bringing evidence in affirmative disproving the particulars stated. Which is not the case here as mere on his opinion to not accept the on oath statement of donor, the gift was disbelieved. 8. There is no force in the contradiction of Ld. DR that as assessee has not challenged the addition by way of appeals, therefore, the penalty order is justified. The two set of proceedings are different and have different parameters for sustenance of the orders on merits. The ground no 1 as raised is sustained and the appeal of assessee is allowed. The impugned order stands quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 th July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 26.07.2023 *Binita, SR.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI