9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at was intended to be sold. It was along with that reply that he enclosed a clarification from Sri.K.C. Basheer to the effect that the amount paid was towards advance as contended by the assessee. The story that payment made was towards the advance was disbelieved by the Tribunal and the reasons thereof have been given by the Tribunal. Such being the case, we are clearly of the view that the transaction was correctly taken as a loan and if so the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 271D are attracted to the case. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.121 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - ANTONY DOMINIC SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. For the Petitioner : Advs.Sri.T.M.Sreedharan (SR.), Sri.M.B.Prajith, Sri.V.P.Narayanan, Smt.Divya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to Mr.Balan Nair (K.V.R. Group), Kannur on behalf of my brother Mr.K.C.Usman who is an Non Resident Indian doing business at Dubai. The said sum of ₹ 15 lacs was given in cash on 21-01-08 after withdrawing from my Savings Bank A/c No.6414 maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Kadirur. A copy of my bank statement for the relevant period is enclosed. The amounts to my account was transferred from by brother's NRE A/c also maintained at IOB, Kadirur. I am assessed to Income Tax at Ward 2, Kannur and my PN is AMXPB4206E. 4. Based on this letter of Sri.K.C. Basheer, notice dated 24.02.2011 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam under Section 274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in which it was found that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 269SS and on that basis penalty was levied under Section 271D. The assessee challenged this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who set aside the order and allowed the appeal by Annexure-D order on the ground that the transaction in question is not a loan or deposit and that therefore Section 269SS is not attracted. It was this order which was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Commissioner and restored the penalty order. 7. Before us, referring to the above documents and also the provisions of Section 269SS and 271D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions made. The fact that ₹ 15,00,000/- was received from Sri.K.C.Basheer on behalf of the assessee is undisputed, although the receipt of the amount or its utilisation are not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee. Initially in his letter dated 13.12.2010, Sri.K.C.Basheer himself had confirmed that the payment was by way of a loan. It was on that basis the assessee was issued notice dated 24.02.2011. In his reply to the said notice the assessee had stated that he had not accepted any loan or deposit from anybody and that ₹ 15,00,000/- received on his behalf was towards advance for the property that was intended to be sold. It was along with that reply that he enclosed a clarification from Sri.K.C. Basheer to the eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g properties on the four sides of the impugned property is absent here. Further the area of the property was mentioned as 0.20 cents, which converts into just about 86 Sq.Ft. The sale value of ₹ 50.00 lakhs mentioned in the agreement for such a small property is highly disproportionate. (c) The reason for not executing the sale deed within the period of six months from the date of the agreement, viz, 21.1.2008 was not given. (d) No further materials in the form of confirmation letters from the buyer or the children of the assessee were furnished to substantiate the explanations. (e) The reason for the delay of about two years in returning the advance amount of ₹ 15.00 lakhs was not explained. (f) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging to his four children does not stand substantiated and hence the said explanation is liable to be rejected. Hence, in our view, the AO was justified in rejecting this claim and accordingly, in our view, the Ld(CIT(A)) was not justified in accepting the contentions of the assessee without conducting further enquiries to ascertain about the veracity of the said claim. 10. These facts found by the Tribunal are absolutely unassailable. Such being the case, we are clearly of the view that the transaction was correctly taken as a loan and if so the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 271D are attracted to the case. 11. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal. Appeal fails and it is accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
