Sh. Krishan Lal Singhal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6813/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 681320114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA JAIN SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Gift

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 SMC SMC SMC SMC- -- -1 11 1 : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 6813/DEL/2014 6813/DEL/2014 6813/DEL/2014 6813/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2005 2005 2005 2005 - -- - 06 0606 06 SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, H HH H- -- -4/5 4/54/5 4/5- -- -78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, 78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, 78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, 78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, PITAM PURA, PITAM PURA, PITAM PURA, PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 034. 110 034. 110 034. 110 034. PAN : AAWP PAN : AAWP PAN : AAWP PAN : AAWPS1027R. S1027R. S1027R. S1027R. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -25(1), 25(1), 25(1), 25(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : MS. GARIMA JAIN, SENIOR DR. DATE OF HEARING : 14.08.2015 14.08.2015 14.08.2015 14.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.09.2015 08.09.2015 08.09.2015 08.09.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXIV, N EW DELHI DATED 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2014. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER :- THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY AS PER T HE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN IMPOSE D ON THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT ALTHOUGH THE TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A VIEW TO END LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS GENUINE AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD O N BEHALF OF THE ITA-6813/DEL/2014 2 REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN MONEY IN THE GARB OF GIFT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF THE GIFT DEED AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DONOR, IT COULD NOT BE SA ID THAT THE GIFT ITSELF WAS NOT GENUINE. 4. LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DONOR SO AS TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE D ONOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF GIFT ON THE PRETEXT OF BUYING PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. SHE RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN BHAIRAV LAL VERMA V S. UNION OF INDIA [1998] 230 ITR 855 (ALL) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SURRE NDER OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERU SED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). I FIND THA T THE PENALTY OF `55,450/- WAS IMPOSED IN THIS CASE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE THE DONOR OF THE GIFT OF `2 LAKHS SHRI GANESH I LAL. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR OF THE GIFT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE DONOR, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE GIFT WAS NOT GENUINE. IT IS WELL- SETTLED THAT THE PARAMETERS OF ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. THE ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINE D ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES BUT PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED MERELY ON PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. I FIND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY FURTHER EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH T HE TRUTH BY SUMMONING THE DONOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HA S MADE THE SURRENDER OF THE GIFTED AMOUNT ONLY TO BUY PEACE WIT H THE DEPARTMENT. ITA-6813/DEL/2014 3 ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT T HE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN EXPLANATION AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAME WAS NOT BONA FIDE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED, AND THE GROUND OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, SHRI KRISHAN LAL SINGHAL, H HH H- -- -4/5 4/54/5 4/5- -- -78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, 78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, 78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, 78, SUVIDHA KUNJ, PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI 110 034. 110 034. 110 034. 110 034. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -25(1), NEW DELHI. 25(1), NEW DELHI. 25(1), NEW DELHI. 25(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR