9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmon order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue relates to the action of the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty of ₹ 24,01,500 levied by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2005-06 under S.271D of the Act. By the cross-objection, the assessee merely supports the action of the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the relevant financial year, the assessee has purchased a land, and for purchasing the land, the assessee has received cash loan of ₹ 24,01,500 from M/s. Lahari Green Park, which happens to be the proprietary concern of the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect, there was no cash loan received by the assessee and as such there was no contravention of the provisions of S.269SS of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee, by holding that the character of the transaction between M/s. Lahari Green Park and the assessee, is a loan which has been taken by the assessee in cash, and therefore, the penal provisions of S.271D are attracted. With the aforesaid conclusion, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 24,01,500 under S.271D of the Act, vide order of penalty dated 25.5.2012. 4. The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, by filing an appeal before the CIT(A). In the course of hearing before the CIT(A), it was contended by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he payment in cash to the seller of the property directly, without involving the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that provisions of S.269SS come into play, only when the assessee accepts cash loans. Since in the present case, no cash loan was accepted by the assessee and since it only represents a journal entry, no penalty can be imposed under S.271D of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the assessee has not received the loan in cash, when the CIT(A) while deciding the quantum appeal fo the assessee, has observed that the assessee has received cash loans from M/s. Lahari G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the assessee s consistent stand has been that there was no cash loan, and whatever has happened was only by way of journal entries in the books of the firm in respect of the transactions between the proprietary concern, M/s. Lahari Green Park and the vendor, without her knowledge or involvement. This claim of the assessee that there was no cash flow between the proprietary firm and the assessee, and whatever happened was only by way of passing of journal entries in the books of the proprietary concern needs to be verified from the records of the firm. However, from the records available before us, we are not able to decide the issue as to whether the assessee has taken cash loan as stated by the department, or there are only journal entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
