TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 10,00,000/- made to returned income, towards cash deposited into the bank held to be unexplained investment U/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment resulted in addition of Rs. 11,47,605/- on account of unexplained investment and estimation of professional income. The assessee agitated the additions in appeal, the ITAT vide its order dated 22/6/2012 deleted the estimation of professional income, however, sustained the addition of Rs. 10 lacs in respect of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 3. Penalty proceedings were initiated, which now remain confined to the addition on account of Section 69A. The AO imposed the penalty in this respect of this addition by following obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from cancer. The ITAT, Jaipur, in ITA No.889/JP/2009 vide dismissing the appeal of the assessee and upholding the above addition made by the Assessing Officer, has held, on page-7 of the appeal order that- "The capacity of the ostensible donor thus remains totally unproved. As afore- stated, and as would also be apparent from the foregoing, the assessee's explanation is also inflicted by inference of lack of genuineness, which stems from the factual and circumstantial gaps in his explanation, which is unsubstantiated, and which we shall examine next. " In view of the above discussion, it is held that the appellant has not been able to substantiate his explanation and has failed to prove that this explanation is bonafide and that all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulars on the part of the assessee. Explanation - 1 to section 271 (1)(c) has no bearing on factor No. 1 but has a bearing only on factor No. 2. The explanation does not make the assessment order conclusive evidence that the amount assessed was in fact the income of the assessee. If the assessee gives an explanation which is reasonable Department cannot ignore it and impose penalty merely relying an observation in quantum. There is no material to show that the gifted amount by father was in any way the income of the assessee. Even if certain additions made by the learned Assessing Officer are confirmed in appeal, no penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) are attracted as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Goswami Smt. Chandra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(SC) for the proposition that the inference can be drawn on the basis of human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and surrounding circumstances. In this case, adverse inference drawn ignoring the near death condition of ailing father from the deadly disease cancer, has been totally ignored which violates the basic tenets of law for imposition of penalty. It is contended that the assessee's primary onus in case of a gift from ailing father stands discharged by establishing all the ingredients of Section 68. Reliance in placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349. Further reliance is placed on following decisions: (i) 57 ITR 532 (SC) P. Seetharamamma (ii) 87 ITR 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the bank account immediately after receipt thereof does not in any manner suggest concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Seen from another angle, had the intention of assessee been to conceal this amount, then he would not at all have deposited this amount in the bank account and that too in that particular account wherein, he receives his professional receipt and which account stands disclosed to the department already. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee had no intention to conceal the amount. It is further submitted that, apart from the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, the assessee also received the amount of Rs. 13.75 lacs from his father which fact was within the knowledge of the Ld. AO in as much as the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is a fact that the assessee's father was 90 years old suffering from cancer, have not been denied. The fact that the earlier gift of Rs. 13.75 lacs from the father has not been disputed by the department. The ld CIT(A) while confirming the penalty has relied only on the observation of the ITAT in quantum proceedings. It is a settled law that the penalty proceedings are neither mechanical nor automatic and merely because there is a finding in the quantum order making the addition by itself cannot justify for imposition of penalty more so when the assessee had disputed the addition. The assessee's reliance on the ....