TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition of Rs. 25,52,137/- made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for gift received from nephew." 2. During the course of hearing, the assessee has also taken an additional ground that reads as under :- Additional Ground : "In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is illegal, unlawful and justified." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the AO initiated penalty proceedings and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was levied vide order dated 17.03.2015 on addition of income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs. 25,52,137/- and capita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter dated 16th February, 2015. In the notice dated 13.3.2013, the AO has ticked on stereotyped format the reason which reads "concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income". However, while levying penalty, the AO has levied the penalty on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) has held as under :- " Held accordingly, dismissing the appeals, (i) that merely because the assessee agreed to the addition and the assessment order was passed on the basis of this addition, when the assessee had paid the tax and the interest thereon in the absence of any material on record to sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is that the assessee received a gift of residential plot from Shri Paresh Agarwal son of Shri Chandra Mohan Agarwal resident of 3, Sethani Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur through Gift deed duly registered on 10.11.2009. The contention of the assessee is that the gift has been received from the nephew and the assessee was under the bonafide belief that he is covered under the definition of 'Relative' as given in Explanation to clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 56. 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R opposed the submissions and supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that ex-facie the definition as given in the Explanation does not cover the assessee. Hence the assessee has made a wrong claim delibera....