Manoj Kumar Singhal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak
[Citation -2015-LL-0212-47]

Citation 2015-LL-0212-47
Appellant Name Manoj Kumar Singhal
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/02/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags imposition of penalty • concealment of income • capital account • question of law • quantum appeal • evade tax • genuineness of transaction • identity of donor
Bot Summary: The appellant challenges order dated 11.03.2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi,, affirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty is not warranted as all relevant facts were disclosed to the assessing officer. The gifts declared by the appellant were shown in the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2017 14:17:30 ::: ITA-324-2014 2 accounts books. Admittedly, the appellant claimed a gift of Rs.2 lacs from one Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg. The order of assessment has attained finality with dismissal of the quantum appeals filed by the appellant. The appellant pleaded that he did not conceal anything as the gifts were duly shown in the accounts books and in the capital account filed before the assessing officer. An appraisal of the facts reveals that the appellant claimed that one Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg had gifted Rs. 2 lacs but when called upon to prove the genuineness of the transaction or the identity of the donor, could not prove the genuineness of the transaction or even the identity of the donor.


ITA-324-2014 [1] IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-324-2014 Decided on : 12.02.2015 Manoj Kumar Singhal ..... Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present: Mr.Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. By way of this order, we shall dispose of ITA-324-2014 and ITA-326-2014. For sake of convenience, facts are being taken from ITA-324-2014. appellant challenges order dated 11.03.2014, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), affirming imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Counsel for appellant submits that penalty is not warranted as all relevant facts were disclosed to assessing officer. mere fact that gift was rejected and quantum appeal was dismissed, does not automatically render assessee liable for penalty. gifts declared by appellant were shown in 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2017 14:17:30 ::: ITA-324-2014 [2] accounts books. fact that donor was not found at given address, cannot be ground to impose penalty. penalty can only be imposed if there is conscious concealment of income or intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We have heard counsel for appellant and perused impugned order. Admittedly, appellant claimed gift of Rs.2 lacs from one Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg. appellant was asked to prove genuineness of gift. appellant was unable to produce Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg. address supplied by appellant was found to be incorrect. assessing officer added Rs. 2 lacs to capital account of assessee, for assessment year 2002-03. order of assessment has attained finality with dismissal of quantum appeals filed by appellant. appellant was thereafter served with notice asking him to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. appellant pleaded that he did not conceal anything as gifts were duly shown in accounts books and in capital account filed before assessing officer. assessing officer rejected explanation and proceeded to levy minimum penalty of R.66,151/-. Aggrieved by this order, appellant filed appeal which was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'. appeal filed by 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 02-12-2017 14:17:31 ::: ITA-324-2014 [3] appellant before Tribunal was also dismissed. appraisal of facts reveals that appellant claimed that one Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg had gifted Rs. 2 lacs but when called upon to prove genuineness of transaction or identity of donor, could not prove genuineness of transaction or even identity of donor. Even address of donor supplied by appellant was found to be false. It is, therefore, apparent that appellant made intentional attempt to evade tax by setting up false gift. impugned orders passed after considering all relevant facts and recording satisfaction in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of Act, do not call for interference and as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication, appeals are dismissed. [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE 12.02.2015 [ AMOL RATTAN SINGH ] Shamsher S.Sabharwal JUDGE Manoj Kumar Singhal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak
Report Error