TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these years were completed under the provisions of s. 143(1) on 24th Nov., 1987, and 12th Nov., 1990, for asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively. As per the claim of assessee, the assessee had received following gifts during the years under consideration: Asst. yr. 1987-88 Rs. "Geeta Batra 21,000 Sarala Damani 21,000 Ramlal Kocha 21,000" Asst. yr. 1987-88 Rs. "1. Chandrakala Agarwal 26,000 2. Gaurishankar Jalan 20,000 3. Dilip Kumar Agarwal 20,000 4. Bholinath Agarwal 20,000 5. Mahesh Agarwal 20,000 6. Shivraj Kundon 20,000 7. Kamlesh Agarwal 20,000 8. Premlata Agarwal 20,000 9. Shrigopal Agarwal 20,000 10. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the gifts received in asst. yr. 1987-88, the summons returned unserved. 5. In respect of asst. yr. 1988-89 as pointed out earlier Smt. Chandrakala Agarwal vide her letter denied to have given any gift to assessee and she stated that she does not know the assessee. Shri Gaurishankar Jalan also denied to have given any gift to assessee. He denied to know the assessee. His signature on the letter also differed from signature on affidavit filed by the assessee. Shri Dilip Agarwal also denied to have given any gift to assessee. The summons issued to the donors at Sr. Nos. 3 to 15 above at the addresses given by assessee returned un-served by postal authorities with the remark "not found, etc." 6. Donors mentioned at Sr. Nos. 16 to 20,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gifts received by assessee. The AO turned down the plea of the assessee that the return offering income in respects of gifts was voluntary. The assessee filed the return only after inquiries were stated and almost after finalisation of the inquiry the return was filed in response to notice under s. 148. The AO also pointed out that at the inquiry stage the conclusion was drawn that assessee had not received any gift but managed to accumulated funds by manipulation. Thus, the assessments were reopened, therefore, the remark of the assessee that gifts were offered for taxation was voluntary is without any basis. The assessee is forced to do it and thus the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. Similarly, during the course of pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al to establish that these amounts represented the appellant's funds. I am of the view that the ends of justice would have been met if the penalty is restricted to the minimum leviable, i.e., 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded." Similar decision was taken by CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1987-88. 9. After narrating the abovementioned facts, the learned authorised representative contended that full particulars and details of gifts received were filed before AO. The offer of additional income in respect of gifts made through return filed in response to notice under s. 148 was voluntary, to buy peace and to avoid litigation. Therefore, he contended that no penalty should have been levied by AO. The CIT(A) was wrong in sustaining penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmed to having given gift, in their bank accounts equivalent cash was deposited immediately before issue of cheque. After detailed inquiry conducted in this regard, the assessments were reopened. As a result of inquiry the assessee was cornered and thus declared additional income in respect of gift. The offer of the assessee cannot be said to be voluntary. The assessee had concealed the particulars of her income. Therefore, penalty has rightly been held to be leviable by CIT(A). 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is the case of the assessee that the declared additional income in the return filed in response to notice under s. 148 was voluntary and to buy peace and to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial whatsoever before the authorities on the basis of which it could be held that the assessee had concealed income during the year under consideration. In the present case, the AO has brought material on record to show that the claim of the assessee in respect of gift received was false and incorrect. Thus, ratio of this decision is not applicable. 14. In the case of CIT vs. Baroda Tin Works, case related to asst. yr. 1971-72 and in the said case it has been pointed out that Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, could not be applied as the same does not have retrospective effect. We are dealing with the case of asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89, therefore, the ratio of said decision cannot be applied to the present....