GUNVANTIBEN N.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing the donor's confirmation, bank statement, and income-tax return. The AO failed to rebut these evidences with specific inquiries, making the penalty unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee received a gift of Rs. 10 lakhs, which was added to income from other sources. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the genuineness of the gift as the donor could not be produced and had a large agricultural income. The AO levied penalty for concealment of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the assessee has provided primary evidence for the gift, and the AO has not rebutted it with specific inquiries?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
ITA No. : 7386/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2003-04) Gunvantiben N Shah, Vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax- C/o M/s Laxmi Laminates, Central Circle 17 & 28, 5, Abhishek Building, Mumbai Vallabhbhai Road, Vile Parle(West), Mumbai -400 056 �थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AAPPS 7448 R/ �थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AAPPS 7446 B अपीलाथ� (Appellant) ��यथ� (Respondent) Appellant by None : Respondent by : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 16-11-2015 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2015 आदेश ORDER अिमत शु�ला, �या. स.: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 05.09.2013, passed by CIT(A) -39, Mumbai in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the levy of penalty of Rs.2,87,700/- on account of “gift” which were treated as ‘income from other sources’ u/s 68.
Despite service of notice through RPAD, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-appellant neither any adjournment letter has been filed hence, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte without the assessee on merits after hearing Ld. DR.
Brief facts are that, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, it was found that assessee had shown sum of Rs. 10 lakhs being gift received from one, Shri Gyachand C Jain. In respect of proving the genuineness of the ‘gift’, the assessee had furnished confirmation from the ‘donor’ with all the details and address and also giving the details of amount given in cheque. However, the AO noted that the relationship with the donor and the occasion on which the gift was received had not been submitted by the assessee. The AO required the assessee to produce the donor who was also issued summons u/s 131 directly by the AO asking him to appear personally. However, the said donor did not attend in person albeit filed a letter dated 05.03.2008 furnishing the relevant details of a gift given to the assessee and also his return of income. The AO from such details noted that the donor had shown smaller taxable income of Rs. 1,04,280/- and agriculture income of Rs. 50,25,755/- which cannot be substantiated in absence of any documentary evidences. Not only that, the same donor has also given gift of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- during the assessment year 2003-04 to 11 persons. Accordingly, after detailed discussions, he added the amount of gift as ‘income from other sources’. It appears that assessee did not file any appeal challenging the said addition. Now, penalty has been levied by the AO on the said amount of gift after detailed discussion.
Assessee’s main contention before the AO as well as CIT(A) in the course of the penalty proceedings had been that, the donor had been identified; he has filed his confirmation along with address; his copy of bank statement and income-tax return were also furnished, to prove the genuineness of the gift. So far as the assessee is concerned, the onus stood discharged. However, both the AO as well as CIT(A) have confirmed the said penalty.
After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders and arguments placed by the DR, we find that the primary ingredient of proving the nature and source of credit which here in this case is “gift” of Rs. 10 lakhs has been discharged/shown in the following manner :- (i) Confirmation letter of the donor giving particulars of address and the mode of the payment of “gift”; (ii) Bank statement of the donor from where the cheque was issued to the assessee; and (iii) Income-tax return for the impugned assessment order wherein the donor has shown agricultural income of Rs. 50.25 lakhs and income from other activities at Rs. 1.23 lakhs.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026