9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BER: The Revenue has impugned first appellate order dated 9th February, 2012 mainly on the issue as to whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of ₹ 4,67,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer. 2, At the outset of hearing the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Madras High Court relied upon by the learned DR is having distinguishable facts, hence, it is not helpful to the Revenue in the present case. 5. Considering the above submissions we find that in the present case the AO held that share application money received by the assessee constitutes receipt of loan or deposit otherwise than by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft of a limit mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. I.P. India (P) Ltd. (supra) we find that in that case before the Hon'ble High Court the assessee company had received share application money in cash of ₹ 18 lakhs from three private limited companies. The AO levied penalty under sec. 271D with this finding that receipt of share application money in cash was in violation of sec. 269SS of the Act in view of the decision in the case of Bhal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st that order of the Tribunal the Revenue went in appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to decline to admit the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal. We thus do not find infirmity in the first appellate order and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of I.P. India (P) Ltd. (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
