SHRI ANURAGRAIJI VALLABHRAIJI GOSWAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1),, SURAT
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 1210/AHD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1210/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswami, V The Income Tax Officer, 10/137, Mota Mandir, Chauta Bazar, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat. S. Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpg 3482 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yogesh B. Shah - Ar Respondent By : Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 25.04.2017. 2. At The Outset Itself, Shri Yogesh B. Shah, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee, Pleads That In Assessee’S Case, Ld.Cit(A) Adjudicated The Issue On Merits & Confirmed The Penalty, Levied By Assessing Officer, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.1,41,571/-. However, Ld Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Minor Delay Of Six Days But Passed The Order On Merits Also By Confirming The Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The Ld Counsel Contends That Assessee Does Not Wish To Press The Issue Of ‘Condonation Of Delay’ Which Was Before The Ld Cit(A). The Ld.Counsel Further Submits That In Assessee’S Case The Tribunal Has Passed The Order In Ita No.1331/Ahd/2015, For The A.Y. 2006-07, Order Dated 13.02.2020, Wherein The Tribunal Has Condoned The Delay In Filing The Quantum Appeal & Then Deleted The Quantum Addition On Which The Penalty Was Levied. Since The Quantum Addition Has Been Deleted, Therefore, Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act May Be Deleted.
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh B. Shah - ARFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 56
…ition of his personal qualities and noble thoughts, gifted sum could not be termed as benefit or perquisite within meaning of section 28(iv) of the Act. Similar finding was rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bombay) whenever an amount is paid as personal gift for personal qualities of assessee and as token of personal esteem and veneration, it cannot be subjected to tax as income arising out of business, profession or vocation. Since, the gift is reflected of Rs.300000/- reflected in the balance account and others were received ITA No.1210/AHD/2017 for…
