9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income on 03.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 10,560/- and the assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Rs. 58,13,876/-. The AO noted that as per the accounts of M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. in the books of the assessee an amount of Rs. 50,05,316/- was transferred which included air conditioners worth Rs. 19,68,769/- and building work in progress amounting to Rs. 30,36,547/-. He also noted that a sum of Rs. 3,48,000/- had been paid as lease rent on 28.06.2006 on behalf of the assessee. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271D of the Act should not be imposed on the aforesaid transactions. The assessee submitted that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that there was no receipt of loan or deposit in cash and only journal entries were passed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (2014) 106 DTR (Del) 139 . 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not receive any loan or deposit from M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. The amount was credited in the account of the said company on account of lease rent, value of air conditioners and building work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in its books by crediting the account of M/s PACL India Ltd. In view of this admitted position, no infringement of Section 269SS of the Act is made out. CIT Vs Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. : 262 ITR 260, relied on." 8. In the present case also the account of the associate concern M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. was credited by the assessee by passing a journal entry and it did not involve acceptance of any loan or deposit or money. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were not applicable and the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 9. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
