9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee company being bonafide constitutes a reasonable cause and being satisfied by the same considering the judicial precedent cited, we accept the same. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside in both the appeals and the penalty imposed u/s 271D and 271E accordingly is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 293 & 294/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2015 - Diva Singh, JM And T. S. Kapoor, AM, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R S Adlakha, Adv For the Respondent : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR ORDER Per Diva Singh, JM. Both these appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to 2006-07 assessment year are being decided by a common order. The assessee by the present appeals assails the correctness of the separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date Name of the Person Amount 08.03.2006 Gokul Chand Jain 25,000/- 18.03.2006 -do- 10,000/- 20.03.2006 -do- 15,000/- 22.03.2006 -do- 50,000/- 10.09.2005 Gokul Chand Jain HUF 50,000/- 23.09.2005 -do- 50,000/- 18.03.2006 -do- 10,000/- 23.03.2006 Madhu Jain 40,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany and directors/shareholders were under exceptional circumstances to accommodate the emergency needs of the company for a very short and temporary period. 5. The assessee company is managed by the members of the same family. 6. The assessee had no intention to conceal any particulars of those transactions. 4. Not convinced with the explanation offered the penalty of ₹ 3,05,000/- was imposed. The assessee challenged the said order unsuccessfully in appeal before the CIT(A). 5. Similarly the AO required the assessee to explain why penalty should not be imposed in terms of Section 271E of the Act for the violation of provisions of section 269T. The assessee as per record is found to have reiterated that the source of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onafide belief for business exigencies on account of ignorance of the provisions of law as they had tried to keep the family business running. In these circumstances, it was his submission that keeping in mind that the intention for introducing the section was to tackle unaccounted money moving in cash and the cases like the present case were not contemplated to be such a case as it is a case of identified persons who are Directors of the company and only one is shareholder who have established that the amounts were taken from their specific bank accounts. These facts, evidences and submissions it was submitted have not been rebutted and on a hypertechnical view the penalty has been imposed. Inviting attention to pages 17 17A in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
