Sh. Rajinder Mohan Lal, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 813/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9983 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Bonafide belief; Wrong claim
• Section: 32; 68; 56

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 813/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. RAJINDER MOHAN LAL VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), R/O H.NO. 570, CHANDIGARH SECTOR 10A, CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAXPL9228N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 10/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23/05/2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH DT. 22/09/2015, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 21,07,513/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS NRI RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 6(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MAY NOT BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT BY HIS DAUGHTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE AGGREGATE GIFTS EXCEEDING RS. 50,000/-WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES AND RS. 21,07,513/- WAS ADDED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT W AS FURTHER HELD BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME AND PENA LTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C)OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED. SUCH FIN DINGS OF THE AO WERE UPHELD 2 BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN FURTHER UPHELD BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH. 3. THE AO VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS LEVIED THE PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN A SUM OF RS. 7,09,390/-, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 6.2 TO 7 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C), PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED, IF THE ASSESSEE H AS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, EXPLANATION-1 BELOW SECTION 271(1) IS RE PRODUCED BELOW: EXPLANATION 1.- WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MAT ERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT,- (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT A BLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND THAT AL L THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL I NCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE(C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHI CH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 6.3 THUS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULA RS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN EXP LANATION-1(SUPRA) HAVE TO BE EXAMINED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD RE CEIVED SHOGUNS AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. ADDITION OF RS. 21,07 ,513/-(NET AMOUNT OF GIFTS IN INDIAN RUPEES) WAS MADE AND PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED AS THE GIFTS WERE RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION OF APPELLANTS DAUGHTER MA RRIAGE AND NOT ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE APPELLANT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE I SSUE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSED WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE MONEY CREDITED TO APPELLLANT S BANK ACCOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO DAUGHTERS ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT WA S ALSO ASKED TO ELABORATE THE RELATIONSHIP AND GIVE THE COPIES OF THE DONORS BANK ACCOUNT FOR VERIFYING CREDITWORTHINESS, ETC. SINCE THE LETTERS FROM THE D ONORS WERE FOUND STEREOTYPES REVEALING ONLY THE NAMES AND NOTHING ELSE REGARDING THE DONORS. SINCE NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED, CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE SE LETTERS AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE COVERED U/S 56 AND HAVE TO BE TREATED I N THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, AS SUCH, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS, THEREF ORE, CONFIRMED. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE APPELLANT WENT TO APPEAL BEFOR E HONBLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH. WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IN ITS ORDER DATED 04/01/2011, AT PAGE 7, HONBLE ITAT CATEGORICALLY REMARKED AS FURTHER, RO UTING TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS REPRESENT MERELY MOVEMENT OF FUNDS AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. HENCE, IT IS CLEAR ENOUGH FROM THE OR DER OF CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT, THAT THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED DECIDING THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE COVERED U/S 56 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AT BOTH LEVELS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS UNDE R DOUBT. CIT(A) HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT TO GIVE HIS PROFILE, STATUS, HIS RELA TIONSHIP WITH THE DONORS AND HOW A PARTICULAR DONOR IS RELATED TO THE APPELLANT WHO GI FTED AMOUNTS IN US DOLLAR RANGING BETWEEN 2100USD TO 5100USD. THE APPELLANT W AS FURTHER ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPIES OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS FOR VERIF YING CREDIT WORTHINESS, ETC. SINCE NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE CIT(A), THE ADDITION 3 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. BUT IN DECIDING AGAINST THE APPELLANT, CIT(A) HAD CERTAINLY TRIED TO GO FURTHER TO ASCERTAIN THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HON BLE ITAT WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED FULLY AND, THEREFORE, OBSERVED IN ITS ORDER THAT RO UTING TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS REPRESENTS MERELY MOVEMENT OF FUNDS AND GE NUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. 6.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPELLANT S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT GIFTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME O F MARRIAGE WERE EXEMPT AND DID NOT KNOW THAT THE GIFTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER ARE NOT EXEMPT, APPEARS ONLY AN EXCUSE. THE APPELLANT IN HI S SUBMISSION DATED 03/09/2015 SAYS THAT HE IS AN ORDINARY MAN AND IS N OT EXPECTED OR REQUIRED TO FURNISH INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT STA TUTORY PROVISION. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN THE FACE OF EVER CHANGING NATURE OF TAX PROVISION ON ACCOUNT OF RECURRING LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS, IT IS NEITHER POS SIBLE NOR FEASIBLE FOR A PERSON OR ORDINARY DILIGENCE TO FOLLOW THE EXACT TAX POSITION ON A PARTICULAR TIME OF TIME. SUCH EXCUSES HAVE NO RELEVANCE OVER THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY ANY STATUTE. MOREOVER, SUCH EXCUSES OF BEING AN ORDINARY MAN ETC IS NOT ACCEPTED FROM A PERSON WHO IS ABLE TO GET SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GIF TS IN US DOLLAR FROM HIS NRI RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AND IS CAUTIOUS ENOUGH TO ROU TE IT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE APPELLANT PRODUCES A STEREOTYPE LETTER FROM ALL THE DONORS, BUT FAILS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CREDITWORTHIN ESS. CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT IN SELECTIVE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCES AND TAKING SHE LTER OF IGNORANCE CONFIRMS THAT HE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AN D PARTICULARS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHILE SHOWING GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE NRI RE LATIVES AND FRIENDS AS EXEMPT. HENCE THE APPELLANT FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLAN ATION IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. 6.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THA T THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE, LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PENAL TY IMPOSED FOR RS. 7,09,390/- IS CONFIRMED DISMISSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN A AGAINST THE QUANTUM ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 4.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONORS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALRE ADY GIVEN GIFTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER, THEREFORE SOCIALLY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM THEM. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE BONAFIDELY CLAIM EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, CONSIDERING 4 THE GIFT RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE OF HI S DAUGHTER. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING ORDERS OF TH E TRIBUNAL: 1. ORDER OF ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SM T. B RAJYASREE, BANJARA HILLS, ITA NO. 1741/HYD/2013. 2. ORDER OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF S MT. GURDEEP KAUR, ITA NO. 459/CHD/2015. 3. ORDER OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M /S RKM HOUSING LIMITED, ITA NO. 1351/CHD/2012. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY IN THE MATTER MAY BE CANCELLED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO ORDER OF ITAT, CHANDIGAR BENCH IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON QUANTUM IN ITA NO. 578/CHD/2011 DT. 04/01/2012 IN W HICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS REFERRED TO THE FINDING OF THE AO AND CIT(A) ON QUA NTUM AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) DESPITE GIVING FURT HER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO LEVY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE LETTER REFER TO BY THE DONORS ARE NOT RELEVANT AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS CORRECTLY LEVIED IN THE MATT ER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS F OUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENHANCED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 21,07,513/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. DUR ING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF THESE GIFTS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. THE ASSESSE E THEREFORE CLAIMED THE GIFTS TO BE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT. THE AO 5 HOWEVER REPRODUCE THE ABOVE PROVISION IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND NOTED THAT AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION, ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEIV ED ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN RE CEIVED ON OCCASION OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTER MARRIAGE AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE AGGREGATE GIFTS EXCEEDING RS. 50,000/ - WERE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)( VI) THUS PROVIDE THAT WHERE ANY SUM OR MONEY, AGGREGATE VALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS RS. 50,000/- IS RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERING, BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF, SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE PRO VISO TO THE ABOVE PROVISION PROVIDE THAT THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED (A) FROM ANY RELATIVE; OR (B) ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL; OR (C) ---------- (D) ---------- (E) ---------- (F) ---------- (G) ---------- THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE GI FTS HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE RELATIVES OR THAT THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON A CCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL I.E; ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTI ON UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISION. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO MARRIA GE SOLEMNIZED OF THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL AND NO DETAILS OF ANY RELATIVES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION AND THE MONEY SO RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD BE TAXABLE. MEANING THEREBY TH E ASSESSEE PLEADED WRONG FACTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN THA T EVENT MADE WRONG AND BOGUS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS GIFTS. IT MAY ALSO NOTED HERE THAT THE MOMENT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TH E SUM OF MONEY MORE THAN RS. 50,000/-, IT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SE CTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN CASE AMOUNT SHALL BE LESS THAN RS. 50,000/- IN OTHE R CASE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO PROVE THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. 6 7. WE MAY NOTE HERE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION BEFORE THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BE NCH, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, CHA NDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO. 578/CHD/2011 VIDE ORDER DT. 04/01/2012 CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION ON MERITS. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 TO 9 ARE REPRODU CED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.21,07,513/- ON A CCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM NRI RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ON THE OCCASION OF THE MA RRIAGE OF ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER. THE AO AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN PARA 2.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO RECO RDED HIS CATEGORICAL FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 2.3 IN THE SUBMISSION THE COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE GIFTS ON ACCOUNT OF DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS PER SECTION MENTIONED ABOVE, ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEI VED ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT TO BE INCL UDED IN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION OF ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER MARRIAGE AND NOT ON THE MARRIAG E OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE IT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES A ND CREDITED IN ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE AGGREGATE GIFTS E XCEEDING RS.50,000/- ARE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HENCE R S.21,07,513/- IS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ASSESSE E HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT,1961 ARE ALSO BEING INITIATED. 8. A PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO CLE ARLY REVEALS THAT THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UTILIZED BY THE A SSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, LD. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH GIFTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND CREDITED IN ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT AND CONSEQUENTLY, TH E AGGREGATE GIFTS EXCEEDING RS.50,000/- WERE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES BY THE AO U/S 56 OF THE ACT. SUCH FINDINGS OF THE AO WERE UPHELD BY THE CIT (A). THE CIT(A) RECORDED THE FINDINGS THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME O F THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE INDIVIDUAL I.E. DAUGHTER OF THE ASSES SEE, WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS SOLEMNIZED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFORDED FURTHER OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE TO THE EFFECT THAT T HE DONORS WERE HAVING CREDIT WORTHINESS AND RELATIONS EXISTED BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONEE. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDED THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE MATTER IS PURELY STEREO TYPE AND DOES NOT PROVE HIS CASE. IT WAS FURTHER HI GHLIGHTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE MONEY WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LD. AO SINCE NONE OF THE CHEQUES ARE IN THE NAME OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT SMT.RADHIKA UPPAL. THE COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE SHOGUNS ARE NEVER GIVEN TO THE BRIDE BUT TO HER PARENTS TO WHICH I AGREE TO SOME EXTENT BUT THAT IS NORMALLY WHEN ONE ATTEND S A WEDDING, THE SHOGUNS ARE GIVEN TO THE PARENTS WHO RECEIVE THE GUESTS. BU T IF SOMEONE SENDS A CHEQUE FOR THE BRIDE, LOGICALLY IT SHOULD BE IN HER NAME. 8. SECONDLY, I ASKED THE COUNSEL TO PRODUCE SOME SU CH EVIDENCE WHICH COULD CLINCH THE ISSUE IN HIS FAVOUR, FOR INSTANCE BANK ENTRIES/TRANSFER WHEREBY THE MONEY CREDITED TO APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO DAUGHTER/SPENT ON HER WEDDING-BASICALY I NEEDED THE UTILIZATION OF THESE AMOUNTS RECEIVED AND SECONDLY I HAD ASKED HIM TO GI VE A PROFILE OF THE APPELLANT, HIS LEVEL AND STATUS AND HIS RELATIONSHI P WITH THE DONORS. FOR 7 EXAMPLE, HOW IS NANDINI CHOPRA RELATED TO THE APPEL LANT WHO GIFTED 5100 USD. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE SAME IN C ASE OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: ORU BOSE 3100 USD BALDEV LAKHANPAL 3100 USD AMAR J.KOHLI 2100 USD SUKH & BANI FARUKH 5100 USD MOHAN KRISHAN BAZAZ 3100 USD SARIN & NIMMI 5100 USD RAHUL MALHOTRA 5100 USD 9. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO ELABORATE THE RELATIO NSHIP AND GIVE THE COPIES OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFYING CREDIT WORTHIN ESS ETC., SINCE THE LETTERS FROM THE DONORS ARE STEREOTYPED REVEALING ONLY THE NAMES AND NOTHING ELSE REGARDING THE DONORS. 10. SINCE NO INFORMATION WAS GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO T HE QUERIES, I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THESE LETTERS-AN EXTRACT OF ONE OF WHICH REA DS AS UNDER : THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INVITATION FOR THE FORTHCOMING MA RRIAGE OF YOUR DAUGHTER DEAR RADHIKA. IT IS OUR STRONG DESIRE TO COME TO IN DIA AND PERSONALLY ATTEND THE FUNCTION BUT SOME BUSINESS COMPULSIONS HOLD US BACK. PLEASE ACCEPT OUR HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS ON THIS EVENT AND OUR BES T WISHES FOR THE COUPLE. SINCE I AM NOT SURE OF RADHIKA HAVING A BANK ACCOUN T, I AM ENCLOSING A CASHIERS CHECK FOR USD 5100/-(NO.012104) DATED 03. 04.2006 IN YOUR NAME, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH YOU MAY KINDLY PASS ON TO HER. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE COVERED U/S 56 AND HAVE TO BE TREATED IN THE HA NDS OF THE APPELLANT AS SUCH, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED, DISMISSING THIS GROUND OF APPELLANT. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(1) SUB -CLAUSE (VI) READ WITH SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 56(1) SUB-CLAUSE (VII) CLEARLY R EVEALS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(1) SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MONEY O R ANY PROPERTY RECEIVED (B) ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF THE SAID PROVISO CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THE SUM OF MONEY OR AN Y PROPERTY RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL ON THE OCCASION OF HIS OR HER MARRIAGE. THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXPRESSION IS VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR AND NO OTHER MEANING CAN B E ASSIGNED TO THE WORD INDIVIDUAL APPEARING THEREIN. LD. 'AR' PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SHRI KRISH NA BHANDAR TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEANING OF THE WORD INDIVIDUAL. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS NOT APP LICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DEFINED THE WO RD INDIVIDUAL IN THE CONTEXT OF STATUS-INDIVIDUAL OR AOP IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 2(31) & 164 OF THE ACT. THE WORD INDIVIDUAL USED BY THE LEGISLAT URE UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 56(1) OF THE ACT IS IN TH E SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. THEREFORE, THE WORD INDIVIDUAL IN THE CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE CAN ONLY BE THE BRIDE OR THE BRIDEGROOM AND CANNOT INCLUDE G ROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CAN BE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE FROM THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE WORD INDIVIDUAL IS USED IN SUCH CLAUSE B. THUS, THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS CLEAR AND WORD INDIVIDUAL INCLUDES ONLY THE INDIVIDUALS, WHOSE M ARRIAGE IS SOLEMNIZED. THE LEGISLATURE CONSCIOUSLY EMPLOYED DEFINITE ARTICLE THE AND NOT INDEFINITE ARTICLE A BEFORE THE WORD INDIVIDUAL IN CLAUSE B OF T HE SAID PROVISO, WHICH MEANS THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL. THUS, THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS CLEAR IN MEANING, CONTENT AND TEXT OF THE WORD INDIVIDUAL. IT IS SETTLED LAW OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE THAT PRIMACY IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE TEXT IN WHICH THE INT ENTION OF THE LAW-GIVER HAS BEEN EXPRESSED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CASE LAW RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. 'AR' DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(1)(VI) READ WITH SEC OND PROVISO THEREUNDER. FURTHER, ROUTING TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL REPRESE NTS MERELY MOVEMENT OF FUNDS AND NOT THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS, AS H ELD BY THE APEX COURT IN VARIOUS DECISIONS. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT, AS R ECORDED BY THE AO, WHICH REMAINED UNREBUTTED THAT THE IMPUGNED GIFTS CHEQUES WERE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE'S DAUG HTER, WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS SOLEMNIZED AND THE QUANTUM OF SUCH GIFTS WERE CREDI TED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE SUM OF MON EY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS DAU GHTER, WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS 8 SOLEMNIZED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSIONS AND CLEAR FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND, HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE, THE AFORE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. T HE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LD. CI T(A) FURTHER PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO E STABLISH HIS CASE ON THE FACTS THAT THE DONORS WERE HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS AND RELATION EXIST BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONEE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT P RODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND EVEN NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ABOUT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSE AND THE DONORS. THE LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE DONORS WERE AL READY REJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS OF NO RELEVANCE AND THE TRIBUN AL ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME. 8. THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW S THAT ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG AND BOGUS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF THE GIFT AMOU NT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATIO N OF THE DONOR OR THERE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE MERELY CLAIMED THAT NO CONFIR MATION COULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE DONOR BECAUSE OF SOCIAL REASON THAT ONCE T HEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN A GIFT ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER OF THE ASSE SSEE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ASK FOR CONFIRMATION FROM THEM. THIS ITSELF IS NO G ROUND FOR CANCELLATION OF THE PENALTY IN THE MATTER BECAUSE BURDEN IS UPON THE AS SESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8.1 HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEEP CHAND [2011] 336 ITR 292 HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT THE GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,75,000/- SA ID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE BOGUS. ONCE THAT WAS SO, TH E ONLY CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F HIS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND, THUS, PENA LTY WAS LIABLE TO BE LEVIED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 9 8.2 HONBLE DEHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. [2010] 327 ITR 510 HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT ADMITTEDLY, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CO NTAINED IN SECTION 40(A)(II) OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX COULD NOT HAVE BEEN C LAIMED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF UNUSABLE AND DISCARDED ASSETS, THE TRIBU NAL, WAS ENTIRELY INCORRECT IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS ADMISSIBLE TO IT UNDER SECTION 32(1)(III). CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 RELATES TO ASSETS OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION AND / OR DISTR IBUTION AND FOR DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT ENGA GED IN GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER DURING RELEVANT YEAR. THUS, T HE PROVISIONS, OF CLAUSE (I) OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 WOULD NOT APPLY IN RESPEC T OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BECOME UNUSABLE AND WRITTEN OFF. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD NO JUSTIFICATION TO CLAIM THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 13,24,539/- AS A REVENUE E XPENDITURE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM, EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT SUCH A DEDUCTION WAS PE RMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(III). IT WAS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IT WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THESE TWO AMOUNTS COULD BE CLAIMED AS R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE WAS A COMPANY WHICH MUST BE HAVING PROFESS IONAL ASSISTANCE IN COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME, AND ITS ACCOUNTS WERE CO MPULSORILY SUBJECTED TO AUDIT. THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE PE NALTY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PAYME NT OF INCOME-TAX AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,24,539/- DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD EQUIPMENT WRITTEN OFF, IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.3 HONBLE DEHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY LTD. [2010] 328 ITR 53 HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR QUASHING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE IRRELEVANT, NOT GERMANE TO THE ISS UE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD LOST SIGHT OF ASPECTS WHICH HAD BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ESTABL ISHED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAILED TO TAKE NOTE O F THE FACT THAT PART OF THE CLAIM AS COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE NOT BECAUSE R HAD RENDERED ANY SERVICES BUT BECAUSE J HAD RENDERED SERVICES FO R WHICH IT WAS PAID 1 PER CENT. OF THE COMMISSION BY R OUT OF THE 3 PER CENT. RECEIVED BY HER. AS FAR AS COMMISSION TO R WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THAT SHE DID NOT RENDER ANY SERVICES AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,83,078/- AND IT COULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, BY VIRTUE OF THIS EXPLANATION. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RE LEVANT AND HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES NO FRESH EVIDENC E OR PRESENTS ANY ADDITIONAL OR FRESH CIRCUMSTANCES IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE W OULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PLACED ON HIM AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY COULD BE JUSTIFIED. EVEN IF THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, BUT ON THE BASIS THEREOF THE CLAIM WHICH IS MADE IS EX FACIE BOGUS, IT MAY STILL ATTRACT PENALTY PROVISION. THE EXPLANATIONS APPENDD TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT ENTIRELY INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CON CEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN. THE OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH THE EXPLANATION INDICATE THAT THE SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT F OR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. 10 8.4 HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UDHAM SINGH & SONS [2014] 365 ITR 137 HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 89-90, MADE AN ADDITION OFRS. 1 LAKH HOLDING THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CONNECTION OF THE GIFT WITH THE PARTNER OR THE FIRM. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PERSON RESIDING ABR OAD HAD NOT SENT OR GIFTED A SINGLE PENNY TO HIS FAMILY MEMBERS RESIDING IN INDI A AND AS SUCH THE STORY OF GIFTING THE HUGE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH TO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AGREED WITH THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOT ONLY THE DONOR BUT EVEN THE SOURCE AS ALSO THE MODE OF THE G IFT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AND EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITION. EVEN THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL AGREED THAT IT WAS NOT A GENUINE GIFT, IT REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ON APPEAL: HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE DONOR HAD VERY CLOSE RELATION IN INDIA BUT MADE NO GIFT TO ANY OF HIS SUCH RELATIVES. THERE WA S NO OCCASION FOR MAKING THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO EXPLAINABLE RELA TIONSHIP OF THE GIFT WITH THE DONE. THOUGH THE DONOR HAD BEEN COMING TO INDIA HE HAD NOT BEEN CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT HAD STAYED WITH THE BROTHER O F HIS FATHER IN LAW IN A TOWN. THUS, THE AMOUNT WAS THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY WAY OF GIFT IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNER FROM A NON-RESID ENT ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR, A DISTANT RELATION OF THE DONEE. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO FR ESH EVIDENCE OR FRESH CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PENA LTY STAGE TO EXPLAIN THE PENALTY MATTER. THERE IS NO BONAFIDE EXPLANATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GIFT AMOUNT IS EXEMPTED FROM TAX BECAUSE ASSES SEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS A CASE OF NO EVIDENCE AND NO EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT IN THE MATTER. ASSESSEE MER ELY GAVE NAME OF THE DONORS BUT DID NOT PROVE THEIR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER AND FURTHER CLAIM OF ASSE SSEE UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VI) WAS FOUND TO BE WRONG AND BOGUS. SINCE ASSESSEE DI D NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION AND WHATEVER EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED WA S NOT SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD THEREFOR E EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTE D IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND WILL PROVE DEEMED CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE SO AS TO LEVY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. 11 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON CERTAI N DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CASE OF SMT. B RAJYASREE (SUPRA)THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY WAS ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME . THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED ON THE BASIS OF PROMISSORY NOTE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN WHI CH THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THESE PROMISSORY NOTE. THERE WAS AL SO NO VARIATION BETWEEN INCOME RETURNED AND INCOME ASSESSED. IN THE CASE OF SMT. GURDEEP KAUR (SUPRA) THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS SUBSTANTIAT ED THROUGH EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY T HE AO DIRECTLY FROM THE COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF M/S RKM(SUPRA) THE INCOME H AS BEEN ASSESSED AT THE SAME AMOUNT AND THE ONLY DISPUTE WAS WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT BEING TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF ITS PROJECT COST . THESE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACT AND WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AUTHORITY BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY BELOW IN LEVYING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THERE IS NO MERIT IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :23 RD MAY 2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR