2015 (7) TMI 326 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty under section 271D - violation of the provisions of section 269SS - Held that - In the instant case the assessee was categorically denying from the very beginning regarding acceptance of such cash loan from Shri K.N. Mutha and since there is no direct evidence to substantiate that the assessee has in-fact accepted the said cash loan and since no statement was recorded from either of the parties, therefore, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal under identical facts and circumstances in the case of Late Shri Madanlal N. Singalkar (2015 (7) TMI 196 - ITAT PUNE), we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271D of the I.T. Act. We accordingly set-aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271D of the I.T. Act for alleged violation of section 269SS.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 271D of the I.T. Act for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
2. The key issue raised was the alleged acceptance of a cash loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from Shri K.N. Mutha in violation of section 269SS.
3. The assessee denied taking any cash loan but had given a cheque as security. The Addl. CIT imposed the penalty based on the belief that the assessee had indeed accepted the cash loan.
4. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the explanation provided by the assessee was improbable and not satisfactory.
5. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where the penalty was canceled due to lack of direct evidence proving the acceptance of a cash loan. The Tribunal emphasized the need for direct evidence to substantiate such claims.
6. Since the assessee consistently denied accepting the cash loan, and there was no direct evidence supporting the claim, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.
7. Following the precedent set by the earlier case, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271D, directing the Assessing Officer to cancel it due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the alleged violation of section 269SS.
8. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was revoked based on the absence of direct evidence proving the acceptance of the cash loan, as per the decision of the Tribunal.