COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUNILA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, which allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income for the assessment year 2009 -10, to the tune of Rs. 46,09,590. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The respondent, along with the return, had appended a note in the computation of the income that during the relevant year, she had received a gift from her brother to the tune of Rs. 1,33,88,413 and from her sister to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh, through bank drafts which had been credited into her savings bank accounts. On account of explanation sought by the Department, she represented on July 12, 2011, that she had received the gifts as her brother was residing at Canada and her sister was residing at Jalandhar. The evidence in the shape of bank accounts from where the donors had withdrawn the amounts was asked for and on the failure of furnishing explanation regarding the source of deposit which had been received by way of pay orders, an explanation was asked on July 28, 2011, as to why the deposits be not treated as the assessee's own income from undisclosed sources and for concealing/furnishing the incomplete particulars of income, penalty proceedings be not initiated.

(3.) On August 10, 2011, an explanation was given by the assessee that a sum of Rs. 7,77,537.97 and Rs. 56,14,035.09 were received from her brother by way of demand drafts, drawn on Toronto Dominion Bank, Canada. Further explanation was given that her relationship had got strained with him and she was not able to contact him and he had shifted to some other country. The amount was offered for taxation to the Department voluntarily. Further explanation was given on November 9, 2011, that the gifts were on account of natural love and affection since the relationship with her husband was strained for the last many years and the factum of the receipts had been mentioned in the return but confirmation could not be done due to the change in relationship.