TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 2009-10, to the tune of Rs. 46,09,590. 2. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law : "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal has erred to direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the minimum penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 46,09,590 ? (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct to direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at Rs. 46,09,590 in the case wherein the asses see has totally failed to fulfil the basic ingredients laid down under section 68 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and for concealing/furnishing the incomplete particulars of income, penalty proceedings be not initiated. 4. On August 10, 2011, an explanation was given by the assessee that a sum of Rs. 77,75,37.97 and Rs. 56,14,035.09 were received from her brother by way of demand drafts, drawn on Toronto Dominion Bank, Canada. Further explanation was given that her relationship had got strained with him and she was not able to contact him and he had shifted to some other country. The amount was offered for taxation to the Department voluntarily. Further explanation was given on November 9, 2011, that the gifts were on account of natural love and affection since the relationship with her husband was strained for the last many years and the factum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of income filed with the return of income. The explanation that her relationship had become strained since the tax return had been given 2 years earlier before the assessment proceedings and, therefore, confirmation could not be procured, was accepted. The tax had been offered and paid and the fact that the same had been received with the proper banking channel was not in dispute. No other source of income had been found by the Assessing Officer and the said transaction would not come under the ambit of penalty proceedings and, accordingly, the benefit was granted and the penalty was reversed. 8. Counsel for the Revenue has laid great stress to submit that the assessee had failed to furnish the particulars of income and, therefore, w....