Case Law Details

Case Name : CIT Vs Kokilaben A Shah (Gujarat High Court)
Appeal Number : Tax Appeal No. 496 of 2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/06/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3783) Gujarat High Court (318)

CIT v Kokilaben A Shah

High Court of Gujarat

Tax Appeal No. 496 of 2010

Decided on: 22 June 2011

 Oral Order

(Per: Akil Kureshi, J)

Revenue is in appeal against judgement of the tribunal dated 16.7.2009 deleting penalty of Rs.6,64,730/- imposed by the Assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(Appeals). Question of law raised for our consideration is as under:

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts in reversing the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the penalty of Rs.6,64,730/- made by the Assessing Officer levied u/s.271(1)(c)?

2. During the assessment year in question, the assessee had claimed to have received a gift from foreign donor. Department however, did not accept this version and discounting gift of Rs.21,84,450/-(equivalent to 45000 U.S. $) taxed the same in hands of assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was also instituted. Assessing Officer as well as CIT(Appeals)imposed penalty which as already noted came to be deleted by the tribunal.

3. Having perused the orders on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the Revenue, we see no reason to interfere. Tribunal observed that gift was received through normal banking channel. Identity of donor was disclosed and established. Assessee had furnished complete details of the gift. Tribunal noted that none of the departmental authorities made any attempt to find out whether the explanation of the assessee was false. Tribunal relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Textiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 125, wherein Bench observed that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, it would not lead to inference that assessee’s case is false. We are also in broad agreement with the same.

4. Relying on the decision of Nashaben H. Jariwala, wherein it was observed that merely because assessee failed to prove the gift in the manner required by the department, it is not possible to conclude that assessee concealed her income, tribunal in the present case deleted penalty.

5. No substantial question of law is arising. Tribunal has in facts of the case deleted the penalty.

Tax Appeal is therefore, deleted.

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25488)
Type : Judiciary (10239)
Tags : high court judgments (4088)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *