2016 (9) TMI 1345 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Jaipur: Penalty under Income Tax Act deleted for lack of evidence and invalid initiation

Mradula Agarwal Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (2), Jaipur

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the addition ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) for gift received from nephew - defective notice - Held that:- Notice has been issued by ticking the stereotyped format. This fact is not controverted by the revenue. Therefore, in our considered view, penalty proceeding is not validly initiated. Hence the initiation of penalty on the basis of the notice dated 13th March, 2013 is not in accordance with the requirement of law. We find that assessee has disclosed the factum of gift. However, claimed exemption under section 50(2)(vii)( b) was found to be not available to the assessee. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) wherein held merely a claim which was made bonafide in respect of exemption or deduction is rejected or not only on the basis of levy of penalty, the AO is required to give the clear finding that the claim of exemption as made was with an intention to evade tax. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on addition of income under section 56(2)(vii)(b).2. Validity of penalty initiation notice and reasons provided.3. Claim of exemption under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for a gift received from a nephew.Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur heard an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (A) confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed on the addition of income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for a gift received from a nephew. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the penalty on the addition made under section 50C was deleted, but the penalty on the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was confirmed. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and referred to relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the penalty based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the invalid initiation of penalty proceedings.Issue 2: Validity of Penalty Initiation NoticeThe Tribunal examined the validity of the penalty initiation notice issued by the AO. The assessee contended that the notice did not specify the reason for levying the penalty, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal observed that the notice issued by the AO followed a stereotyped format without providing specific reasons. Referring to the Karnataka High Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceeding was not validly initiated due to the inadequacy of the notice. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings.Issue 3: Claim of Exemption for Gift ReceivedThe Tribunal evaluated the claim of exemption under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for a gift received by the assessee from a nephew. The assessee argued that the gift was received in good faith under the belief of being covered under the definition of 'Relative' as per the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the particulars of income and the furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on legal principles and the lack of evidence to show an intention to evade tax, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in this regard.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the addition of income under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of validly initiated penalty proceedings and the necessity of clear findings to support the imposition of penalties under the Income Tax Act.