9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge. Since common facts are involved in both these appeals and the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant has challenged the impugned order by proposing the following questions: Tax Appeal No.1463 of 2011 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), who deleted the entire penalty of Rs.24,52,740/- levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee to indulge into cash transactions in violation of Section 269SS of the Act ?" Tax Appeal No.1466 of 2011 "Whether, on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a partner of the assessee firm and trustee of B.G. Education Trust which was running a school in the name of Ambe Vidyalaya. The collection centre for the fees of the hostel and the school was at a single place. Sometimes, the fees collected by the hostel were handed over to Shri S.R. Shah as the working hours of the bank might have been over. Since Shri S.R. Shah held the cash on behalf of the hostel for its safe custody, according to the assessee, the same did not imply that the hostel had given any loan to Shri S.R. Shah. Similarly, if some amount was received from Shri S.R. Shah, the same did not mean that hostel had accepted any loan from Shri S.R. Shah in cash. It was the case of the assessee that if some expenditure was incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration, in the context of levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the amounts accepted from the first five institutions as per the above table, were credited through journal entries on account of fees while the transactions with the remaining two institutions were through cheques. Likewise, in the context of the penalty under section 271E of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that repayments in cash were only Rs.12,03,155 while Rs.2,10,000/- were repaid by cheque and Rs.10,36,756/- through journal entries besides Rs.6,43,000/- incorrectly considered as repayments of loan/deposit. 6. Revenue questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank demand draft drawn in the name of the person who has made the loan or deposit if such amount is twenty thousand rupees or more. In the present case, The Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has concurred with the above findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has found, as a matter of fact, that there was nothing on record to show that the above transactions were attached with certain conditions or stipulation as to period of repayment, rate of interest, manner of payment, etc. so as to treat the transactions as loan or deposits. The Tribunal further noted that the revenue has not placed any material suggesting that the transactions were actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
