2015 (1) TMI 1161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....            Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Clause B to Explanation 1 to Sec.271(1)(c) are attracted thereby reversing the order of first appellate authority cancelling the penalty? 2. The brief facts are as follows: The appellant/assessee is an individual carrying on business in cloth and readymade garments as a proprietary concern. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 declaring the income at Rs. 3,61,060/-. On a perusal of the statements filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee received NRE gifts to the extent of Rs. 7.25 lakhs from various parties. Since the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings, holding that the Assessing Officer, because of the surrender made by the assessee in the course of survey, did not consider it necessary to make further enquiry to establish that the gifts claimed were not genuine or false to establish the fact that the assessee had actually concealed facts/or particulars of its income or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 4. As against the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan V. CIT reported in (2001) 251 ITR 99, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue restoring the penalty proceedings initiated by the Asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....offered the said NRE gifts as income. Hence, the onus is on the assessee to substantiate the said NRE gifts. When the assessee is not able to prove the genuineness of the NRE gifts, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 10. This Court had an occasion to consider the issue on the levy of penalty in the decisions reported in 283 ITR 254 (M.S.Mohammed Marzook (Late) and another V. Income Tax Officer); 292 ITR 585 (M.Shahul Hameed Batcha V. Income Tax Officer) and 283 ITR 230 (M.Sajjanraj Nahar V. Commissioner of Income Tax), wherein, this Court had elaborately considered the case law on the subject and pointed out to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan V. CIT reported in (....