9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions but if the alleged income is held to be deemed income of the assessee, the penalty u/s.271-D could not be invoked. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 7 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2016 - Ajay Rastogi And Jainendra Kumar Ranka, JJ. Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal, for the Appellant Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the Respondents JUDGMENT ( Per Ranka, J. ) 1. Instant income tax appeal u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dt.26.9.2001 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. It relates to the assessment year 1991-92. Following question of law was admitted by this Court :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT (A), the contention was reiterated and it was also contended that the said amount of ₹ 20,000/- has been held as a cash credit u/s.68 and separate addition of ₹ 20,000/- was made u/s.68 and once it has been held to be deemed income of the assessee it cannot be treated for the purposes of section 269-SS as a loan or deposit and thus this found favour with the CIT (A), who deleted the penalty. 5. The revenue assailed the said deletion before the Tribunal however the Tribunal upheld the penalty by holding that violation of section 269-SS and section 68 are two separate cause of action and even if it has been held to be deemed income u/s.68 still penalty can be imposed, if there is violation of provisions of section 269-SS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cash, therefore, there was violation of section 269-SS as well and admittedly the amount has been received from wife and it could not be anything except loan or deposit and the amount being in excess of the prescribed limit u/s.269-SS, penalty has been rightly sustained by the Tribunal. 8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, in our view the penalty is not sustainable u/s.269-SS. Admittedly, the amount of ₹ 20,000/- was not found credited in any books of account but on account of some noting on some incriminating document, the AO held it to be not explained and the AO found that the assessee was unable to explain the creditworthiness or genuineness of the deposit and accordingly made an addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessee fails to offer satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source so offered by him or fails to tender satisfactory explanation, the said amount can be treated as deemed income of the assessee, in our view once it has been held as deemed income of the assessee or an addition u/s.68, has been made the character of the said amount/addition will not remain as a loan or deposit and section 269-SS will not be applicable. Although addition u/s.68 or provisions of sec.269-SS are independent provisions but if the alleged income is held to be deemed income of the assessee, the penalty u/s.271-D could not be invoked. 10. The question is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, with no order as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
