Income Tax

No income concealment us 271(1(c) on gift under explanation 5A. NSC declared us 153A was received as inheriting, gift from father, grandfather-ITAT

No income concealment us 271(1(c) on gift under explanation 5A. NSC declared us 153A was received as inheriting, gift from father, grandfather-ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
1032 (2016) (10) ITAT 

Important case law cited:
Sheraton Apparels Vs. ACIT (2002) 256 ITR 20

Brief Facts of the Case:
The appellant assessee was subjected to search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the search, National Saving Certificates (NSCs) amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- were found in the joint name of the assessee and her father/grandfather. During the search proceedings, the assessee agreed to offer the above said sum of 3.50 lacs as her income. Accordingly in the return of income filed u/s 153A the assessee declared the said amount for the relevanr assessment year under. The Assessing Officer accepted the return and thereafter levied penalty u/s  271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking Explanation 5A to sec.271(1)(c).

The CIT(A) also confirmed the same and aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner Appeals, the assessee had filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Contentions of the assessee:
The prime contention of the assessee was that she did not invest amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs in NSCs out of her own income but she had received the same by way of inheriting/gift from her father/grandfather.

It was submitted that explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) shall be applicable only if the assessee is found to be the owner of the asset and the assessee claims that the same has been acquired by him by utilizing (wholly or in part) his income for any previous year.

It was further submitted that she did not have any other income in the year under consideration and the Assessing Officer has himself recorded the said fact in the assessment order. In the absence of own income, the question of invoking Explanation 5A did not arise.

Observations made by the ITAT:
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) himself had observed in the assessment order that the assessee did not derive any income during the year under consideration. Further it was a fact that the NSCs were held in the joint name of the assessee and her father/grandfather, which supported the case of the assessee that the investments were made by her father/grandfather.

The Tribunal opined that the Explanation 5A was not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in this view of matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the return of income filed by the assessee offering the amount of NSCS as agreed in the statement could not be considered to be a case of concealment of particulars of income.

Held:
The order of CIT(A) was set aside and the AO was directed to delete the penalty.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Exemption u/s 54 allowed despite failure to deposit in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme

ITAT allows exemption u/s 54 allowed despite failure to deposit the amount in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme and new asset…

21 hours ago
  • Income Tax

No addition to be made in hands of assessee solely on basis of uncorroborated loose-sheet

Addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose-sheet - ITAT In…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Claim of Leave Encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA)(ii) dismissed beyond Rs. 3 lakhs

ITAT dismisses claim of Leave Encashment exemption u/s 10(10AA)(ii) beyond Rs. 3 lakhs In a recent judgment, ITAT Ahmedabad has…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT

Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC

Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation

When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…

2 days ago