9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The assessee has also failed to show that there existed a reasonable cause in accepting the impugned loan amount in cash. Hence, we are unable to sustain the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside his order and restore the penalty levied by the AO. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a property. 4. The assessee submitted that his four children had agreed to sell a property to Shri K.C. Usman for a consideration of ₹ 50.00 lakhs and in this connection; he received a sum of ₹ 15.00 lakhs as advance. The assessee submitted that the impugned amount of ₹ 15.00 lakhs represents this advance and hence the provisions of sec. 269SS does not apply to this amount. The JCIT noticed that the agreement was valid for a period of six months from 21.1.2008 and further the agreement was not found registered with the Registrar Office. Further the assessee has claimed to have returned the above said amount only during October, 2010 to December, 2010. The assessee also did not explain as to why he kept the amount for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credits shall be assessed as the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 7. On the contrary, the Ld A.R placed heavy reliance on the order passed by Ld CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessee had brought in about ₹ 3.00 crores from abroad and hence there was no necessity for him to take the loan in cash. He submitted that the said amount represents property advance and hence the provisions of sec. 269SS shall not apply to the same. Referring to the Circular No. 387 dated 6.7.1984 issued by CBDT (153 ITR (St.) 22), the Ld A.R submitted that the CBDT has explained that the provisions of sec. 269SS shall be applicable to cases where unaccounted income unearthed by the department, but could not assessed on account of the device ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the description of the property is incomplete, i.e., the usual practice of describing the surrounding 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 y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim of the assessee that it represents the advance received for sale of property belonging 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. 9. The ld Counsel submitted that the genuineness of the receipt of ₹ 15.00 lakhs has been accepted and hence there is no question of unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly he contended that there is no jurisdiction to the JCIT to levy penalty u/s 271D of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuineness of the loan does not take way the said loan from the sweep of the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act. Hence, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by Ld A.R in this regard. We have already noticed that the assessee has failed to show that the impugned transaction will fall in the category of transactions prescribed under the proviso to sec. 269SS of the Act. The assessee has also failed to show that there existed a reasonable cause in accepting the impugned loan amount in cash. Hence, we are unable to sustain the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside his order and restore the penalty levied by the AO. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 22-11-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
