COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act'), and has challenged order dt. 31st Oct., 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A (for brevity, the Tribunal'), in ITA No. 649/Chandi/2005. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the gift amount claimed by the assessee came to him through banking channel from one Shri Harcharan Singh, Post Box No. 24810, Dubai (UAE). The amount was credited to the assessee from the NRE Account No. 67, maintained by the aforementioned Shri Harcharan Singh with the State Bank of Patiala, Kurali. It has further been found that the assessee has also produced gift deed and showed the impugned amount in its return. The Tribunal has further recorded a categorical finding that the Revenue has not furnished any evidence to prove that the assessee had either concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars nor it is a case of the Revenue that the assessee has consciously and intentionally defied the law. It is on the basis of the aforementioned findings that the Tribunal has taken the view that no question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise.

(2.) IT is admitted position that the assessee had claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was received from the NRE Account No. 67, maintained with the State Bank of Patiala, Kurali, by one Harcharan Singh. The: aforementioned claim of the assessee was declined and further proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the correct particulars of his income. However, the Tribunal has found as a fact that requirements of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not satisfied because the impugned amount claimed to be a gift had come through a banking channel and from an identifiable source, i.e., NRE Account No. 67, maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Kurali. Therefore, the Tribunal relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. : [1972]83ITR26(SC) and K.C. Builders and Anr. v. : [2004]265ITR562(SC) and a number of other judgments of various High Courts, came to the conclusion that once the particulars of income have been duly declared, then it cannot be concluded that the assessee has concealed the particulars or has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. It has also been held that mere observation of the AO without recording any satisfaction concerning concealment of income was not sufficient for initiation of proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On that additional ground also, the Tribunal has found that no case for imposition of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act is made out.

(3.) THEREFORE , we do not find any ground to interfere in the view taken by the Tribunal. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed.