9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the group company has been searched accordingly since nothing has been brought on record to canvass that reasonable cause is not constituted appeals of the assessee have to be allowed. Decision rendered in Bhalotia Engineering Works (2004 (8) TMI 66 - JHARKHAND High Court ) is entirely distinguishable on facts the impugned orders are set aside and the penalties imposed in each of these appeal is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 856/Del/2014, ITA No. 857/Del/2014, ITA Nos. 785 & 786/Del/2014, ITA No. 855/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - Diva Singh, JM For the Petitioner : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv For the Respondent : Dr Anjula Jain, Sr. DR ORDER These five appeals of the assessee's for the sake of convenience are being decided by a common order. It was a common stand of the parties before the Bench that the arguments on facts and law in these five appeals are more or less identical as in all these appeals except in ITA No.855/Del/2014 the prayer of the assessee is that penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act by the AO on facts has wrongly been confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). In ITA No.855/Del/2014 the prayer is that pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the issue unsuccessfully before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order. 6. Aggrieved by this the assessee has came up in appeal in the present proceedings. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the record submitted that the Assessing officer in the order u/s 143(3) has not made any addition u/s 68 on facts and the receipt of the amount in cash from a sister concern received as share application money has been accepted by the AO. In these facts, it was stated that the genuineness and the bonafide of the assessee stand explained and addressed. Thus the penalty it was submitted has wrongly been invoked by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- 1. ITO vs M/s Avadh Rubber Ltd. [ITA no.-1853/Kol/2008] Order dated 28.05.2010 (ITAT, Kolkata Bench); 2. CIT vs I.P.India Ltd. 343 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court); 3. CIT vs Samora Hotels (P.) Ltd. [ITA No.313/2006] order dated 23.02.2012 (Delhi High Court); 4. ITO vs M/s Homeland City Projects Ltd.[ITA No.-2043/Del/2012] order dated 08.10.2012 (ITAT, Delhi Bench); 5. JCIT vs M/s Ellora Mercantile (P.) Ltd.[ITA No.1664/Kol/2012] order dated 18.04.2013 (ITAT, Kolkata Bench); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication. The money it was submitted was utilized for making payment of stamp duty and court fee and had to be deposited in cash. On account of these peculiar facts and circumstances and the business compulsions of the Company the amount was necessarily accepted from the sister concern in cash. It was submitted that due to the business compulsions the amount was received in cash under a bonafide belief that available funds from sister concern could be so utilized to tide over the emergency. The said belief based on these facts it was argued constitutes a reasonable cause thus the penalty may kindly be quashed. 6.3. Even otherwise it was submitted the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court decision supports the view including the decisions of the Punjab Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Speedways rubber Limited [2010] 326 ITR 0031 (P H) which have considered the claim of the assessee as a bonafide claim and while holding the default to be technical in nature decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The view so taken it was submitted was despite the availability of the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Bhalotia Engineeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year. In the facts of the present case also pursuant to the search on Rajdarbar Group of Companies, return disclosing an income of ₹ 4,45,500/- was declared by the assessee. However on account of the receipt of share application money from M/s Adharshila Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 2,50,000/- for similar reasons, penalty u/s 271D was imposed and upheld in appeal. Herein also it was submitted no addition on the said amount has been made by the AO. The amount has been accepted as a genuine receipt from the sister concern. Inviting attention to para 3 of the impugned order, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the urgent need of cash arose to meet the various expenses and when it was noticed that the assessee did not have sufficient funds to meet the routine necessary expenses. Herein also the assessee was under a bonafide belief that the payment received in cash from a sister concern to keep it functional was in accordance with law. The amount was also finally repaid back on 15.05.2006 by cheque as soon as the financial position improved thus ultimately the amount was not adjusted by the transfer of shares which was the original intention to adjust the receipt of cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered under the head income from other sources . He also took note of the fact that the assessee had repaid the amount of ₹ 3 lacs in cash to M/s V.K.Fiscal Services Pvt.Ltd. in violation of the limit prescribed u/s 269T. Thus after recording his satisfaction he initiated penalty proceedings. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted and penalty was imposed therein u/s 271E of the Act. The said action was challenged in appeal unsuccessfully before the CIT(A). 10.2. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. Herein also the Ld. AR relying on similar legal arguments and arguments on facts canvassed that the repayment in cash was made under a bonafide belief that the repayment to a sister concern did not constitute a violation. 12. Thus having addressed the facts of the case in the context of the stand of the parties thereon where the Ld. Sr. DR has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Bhalotia Engineering Works Ltd. (cited supra) and the Ld.AR has relied upon I.P. India Ltd. amongst others of the Jurisdictional High Court (cited supra); CIT vs Raugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P.) Ltd. (cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
