COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BALJEET JOLLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by the Revenue is directed against the order, dt. 14th Feb., 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' Delhi, in ITA No. 1185(Del)/94. The Revenue proposed the following questions, stated to substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming, the order passed by the CIT(A), deleting penalty levied on the assessee under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty was imposed for alleged failure on her part to explain the source of a sum of Rs. 6 lacs, claimed to have been taken as loan from one M/s Laxmi Chand Bhagaji of Bombay. While affirming the order passed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal has found that the said loan was taken by means of bank drafts, which were encashed through proper banking channels on 12th March, 1983, and 15th March, 1983; the copies of the bank accounts, placed on record clearly showed that the deposits pertain to the asst. year 1984 85 and the said loans raised against pronotes were duly confirmed by said Laxmi Chand Bhagaji.

(3.) WE are also inclined to agree with the Tribunal that since the loans were admittedly raised in the previous year relevant to the asst. year 1984 85, their genuineness had to be examined in the asst. year 1984 85 and, therefore, the mere fact that the addition sustained in respect of the asst. yr. 1985 86 on account of said loan was not challenged further by the assessee, does not ipso facto show that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of her income in respect of asst. yr. 1985 86 and penalty under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act could be sustained on the basis of the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeal.