9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of penalty u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act for the block period 1-4-1990 to 26-9-2000.
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI addressed the issue of the validity of a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed on the assessee u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act for the block period 1-4-1990 to 26-9-2000. The Departmental Representative argued that the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was received in cash by the assessee, as evidenced in the CD seized by the Department, and emphasized the failure of Shri Gautam Gupta to confirm the transaction before the Revenue authorities. It was contended that the cash receipt was part payment of a finance agreement dated 28-7-1998. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee opposed this argument, stating that the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was assessed as undisclosed income for the block period, rendering the provisions of section 269SS inapplicable. Reference was made to a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to support this position. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the amount in question was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee for the relevant financial year during the block assessment. Consequently, it was held that the provisions of section 269SS in conjunction with section 271D could not be invoked in this scenario. Citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was concluded that when an amount is undisclosed income, proceedings under section 269SS and section 271D cannot be initiated. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, confirming the order of the CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. In conclusion, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI, upholding the decision regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D for the specified block period.
|
