9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ₹ 20,000 and above, we are of the opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the appellant- assessee to explain such transactions which are ₹ 20,000 and above. After giving an opportunity to the appellant-assessee, the Assessing Officer shall proceed with the matter and decide the controversial issue either accepting or rejecting the explanation depending upon the nature of the explanation. - ITA.No. 19 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2014 - DR. MANJULA CHELLUR MR. A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. , SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN, SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR, SMT.DIVYARAVINDRAN FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder imposing penalty under section 271D ? (iv) Is not the order of the Appellate Tribunal, annexure F, arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside ? 4. The undisputed facts that lead to filing of the present appeal are as under : The appellant-assessee is having several branches of Karayogam. The branch in question is N. S. S. Karayogam No. 1365, said to have been established for the overall welfare of its members of Kakazham/Neerkun nam area. Apparently, it indulges in financial business independently. The appellant-assessee was accepting deposits from and financing loans to both members and non-members. Several issues came up for consideration for the above assessment year. But we are concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of money was in cash. It could be ignorance, could be non-availability of banking facility in the locality, etc. It is not a situation where the assessee never had an opportunity to explain. It is not ignorance of the customers but it is the ignorance of the assessee who received the money in cash. As pointed out by the first appellate authority, there was a difference of one crore forty lakhs, i.e., variance between the balance-sheet and account books produced. This gave rise to a survey by the Department. However, with other issues, we are not concerned. 7. Learned standing counsel arguing for the Revenue submits, the only defence raised by the assessee at the earliest point of time was ignorance and further contends that the ignorance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of amounts. So far as the present controversy is concerned, as indicated by learned standing counsel for the Revenue, the case which was relied upon by the Tribunal, i.e., K. V. George's case, came up for consideration before this court in I. T. A. No. 279 of 2013-since reported as K. V. George v. CIT [2014] 2 ITR-OL 445 (Ker), wherein the scope of sections 269SS and 271D was discussed with reference to various judgments of other High Courts and also the Supreme Court. While referring to the scope of section 269SS read with section 271D, it was clearly held that the only consideration would be what was the reasonable cause for receiving such a huge amount by way of cash or what was the reason for not receiving the loan or deposit by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
