9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 440 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s 271D - contravention of Section 269SS - assessee did not substantiated the loan from the balance that the said loan was not in cash - HELD THAT - As there was no regular assessment done in assessee s case as the assessee is an agriculturist. Further, AO as well as the CIT(A) has not doubted the bank statement of the assessee wherein the amount which was transferred from The Berna Gamni Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. was shown - The transactions as well as the ledger alongwith the certificate issued by The Berna Gamni Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. was not doubted by the revenue authorities. Thus, the loan was accepted through banking channel and there was no cash involved in the present transactions. Therefore, Section 269SS does not attract. Thus, the penalty levied under Section 271D does not sustain. Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17.
Summary: Issue 1: Grounds of appeal against Ld. CIT(A) order The appellant raised various grounds of appeal against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), including issues related to penalty levied u/s 271D and contravention of Section 269SS. Issue 2: Penalty imposed under Section 271D The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash loan in contravention of Section 269SS. The appellant contended that the loan was taken through banking channel and provided documentary evidence to support this claim. Issue 3: Appeal before CIT(A) The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the penalty order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to further proceedings. Issue 4: Arguments presented The appellant, being an agriculturist, argued that no regular assessment was conducted, and the loan was accepted through banking channels. The appellant submitted documentary evidence to support this claim. Issue 5: Tribunal's decision After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Tribunal noted that no cash transactions were involved, and the loan was accepted through banking channels. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed for both A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2016-17. Separate Judgment: The Tribunal allowed both appeals, emphasizing that no cash transactions were involved, and the penalty under Section 271D was unjustified.
|
