9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADRAS HIGH COURT] we find when rigours of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied, penalty could not be levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who after following the decision of this Court reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), allowed the appeals. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue has filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeals, following the decision of this Court cited supra, holding that the Revenue has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction and the assessee had a bonafide belief that share application money received was neither loans or deposits. The Tribunal further held that when rigours of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied, penalty co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent finding by the authorities below, no interference should be called for by the High Court. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference." 7. On an identical issue, this Court, by order dated 03.12.2014 in T.C.(A)Nos.982 and 983 of 2014, following the above-said decision, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue holding that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the money received was only towards allotment of shares and it is not a loan or deposit. 8. In the present case also, the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the money received was only towards allotment of shares and it is not a loan or deposit. Hence, follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
