9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidences submitted by the assessee and therefore the allegation of the Revenue of manipulation are baseless and without any supporting evidence. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals) in treating the amounts in dispute as advance and not as loans or deposit and we uphold the same, accordingly the grounds raised in both the appeals are allowed in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.:-4115, 4116/Del /2012 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - SHRI H S SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv. ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A. M. These two appeals by the revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Addl. CIT, Range-2, Meerut, restored. ITA No. 4116/Del/2012 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the penalty of ₹ 13,10,000/- levied u/s 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that re-payment of ₹ 11,00,000/- and ₹ 2,10,000/- were found in the ledger account of M/s Shah Sons Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee as paid on 17/06/2006 and 25/03/2007 respectively in contravention of Section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved by the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the revenue filed single appeal for both the penalties on 07/12/2011, however later on being advised by the Senior Departmental Representative that two separate appeals were required to file, immediate measures were taken and these two separate appeals were filed and hence there was a delay of seven months and eight days from the last date of filing appeal which was on 17/12/2011 . He further submitted that in view of the bonafide and inadvertent procedural error, the delay was occurred, which might be condoned. Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee on the other hand did not oppose for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard the rival sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the inherited property also. According to the Ld. Assessing Officer, it was not possible to make the mistake of name in all the four entries of receipt and payment and at least the entries should have been made in the capital account of the assessee rather than in the accounts of the business related entity. The Assessing Officer asked the counsel of the assessee to produce Sh. Om Prakash Dhama alongwith proof of identity source of payment etc however the assessee expressed inability to produce the person and requested for issue of summon under section 131 of the Act. The however, looking to the limited time available for completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not issue summon to the said party and rejected the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt and payment could be recorded in the name of M/s Shah sons private limited instead of Sh. Om Prakash Dhama and therefore the contention of the assessee was only a subsequent manipulation and thus the penalties levied might be sustained. On the contrary, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee relying on the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), submitted that the mistake was noticed during the course of scrutiny proceedings and accordingly all the evidences were even furnished before the Assessing Officer and the allegations made by the Ld. Senior DR was without any basis or evidences. Accordingly submitted that finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) might be upheld. 7. We have heard th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to record that the agreements could not be executed because of dispute about ownership of the inherited properties which was ultimately settled by courts order dated 5.7.2009, a copy of which was placed on record. In view of the AO not holding the amounts received as unexplained which is borne out by the fact of making no addition on this account and the accompanying evidences relating to Agreements entered into for sale of property which were subsequently cancelled, the amounts received by the appellant could only be held as advances and not as loans or deposits. The provisions of section 269SS and 269T were, therefore, not attracted in the case. The penalty orders under section 271D and 271E are, therefore , cancelled. 8. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
