9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 28.12.2011 upholding penalty of ₹ 2,50,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Act in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee received cash loans of ₹ 1,00,000 from Shri Rajesh P.Kamdar and ₹ 1,50,000 from Shri Nitin P.Kamdar on 30.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upheld the penalty. 3. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the receipt of loans in cash beyond the monetary limit prescribed u/s 269SS calls for imposition of penalty u/s 271D. However the penalty u/s 271D is not absolute inasmuch as section 273B provides that no penalty inter alia u/s 271D shall be imposed if there is reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to M/s.Pranav Investment for purchase of TDRs would not have been encashed. We, therefore, find that there was a reasonable cause in accepting these loans in cash, thereby bringing the case within the purview of section 273B calling for deletion of penalty, which would have been otherwise imposable u/s 271D. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and order for the deletion of penalty. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
