Tribunal held that; when the assessees offered the income voluntarily for taxation and the source of acquisition of such jewellery was also explained before the AO as the gifts from relatives, friends and parents, which were accepted. After considering the explanation the penalty proceedings were dropped. The view taken by the AO for dropping the penalty proceeding initiated was one of the possible views supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in substituting his view for that of the AO in dropping the penalty proceeding. (AY 2012 -13)
S. Ashok Kumar v. ACIT (2018) 64 ITR 57 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Delay of 565 days is condoned-Voluntary offer of income in revised return-Dropping of penalty proceedings-Commissioner cannot substitute his view in revision proceedings for assessing officer view for dropping penalty. [S. 254(1), 271(1)(c)]