Jyotiben Jayvadan Kapadia v. Dy. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 2574 (Sur-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 271(1)(c)

Where assessee offered certain evidence in the form of declaration, details of donor and PAN number before AO and No efforts were made by AO by issuing any notice to the donor under section 133(6) or any summon under section 133(1) and when assessee made a claim which was coupled with evidence, though it was not conclusively proved, it cannot be a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Addition on account of non-genuine gifts in absence of sufficient evidence - All the evidences were duly provided by assessee -

AO made addition on account of non-genuine gifts received by assessee. He was directed to furnish all necessary details/evidences. AO asked assessee to furnish the details of donor along with copy of gift deeds and their income-tax returns. Assessee provided the name of donors, their PAN Numbers, address and the amount of gifts. He further stated, though gifts were genuine but donors were not cooperating with assessee. Therefore, he is voluntarily declaring gifts as his additional income. Explanation furnished by assessee and the revised return was not accepted by the AO. AO maintained addition of non-genuine gift and initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c).Held: Assessee offered the additional income, though, after issuing notice under section 142(1) by AO. Further, the assessee was having in position of certain evidence in the form of declaration, details of donor and PAN number which were furnished. No efforts were made by AO by issuing any notice to the donor under section 133(6) or any summon under section 133(1). This was a case where assessee made a bona fide claim, it was accompanying with certain documentary evidence, and however, it was not conclusively proved for the want of confirmation from donor. When assessee made a claim which was coupled with evidence, though it was not conclusively proved, it cannot be a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Relied:T. Ashok Pai v. CIT 2007 292 ITR 11 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1251 (SC), Pr. CIT (CENTRAL) v. Goa Coastal Resorts And Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 573 (Bom-HC) : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 81 (Bom-HC), Nayan C. Shah v. ITO 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1955 (Guj-HC), Vijay Champak Patel v. ITO ITA No.281/AHD/2016 dated 9-10-2020, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 51 (Mum-Trib) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1242 (Mum-Trib).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessees favour.

A.Y. : 2003-04

IN THE ITAT, SURAT BENCH