9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he share application money ₹ 50,000/- in cash and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the c se, Ld. Addl. CIT has erred in law and facts in imposing the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- for treating the share application money of ₹ 50,000/- as loan and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Addl. CIT has erred I law and facts in imposing the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- for violation of section 269SS of the I. T. Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holdings that ratio of case law CIT V Speedways Rubber Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 275 ITR 399 and imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000/- for this alleged violation of Section 269SS and this penalty was imposed u/s 271D. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A) but without success and now the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. It is submitted by the Ld. A.R. before us that admittedly, the judgement of Hon ble Jharkhand High Court rendered in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (supra) is against the assessee but this is not the jurisdictional high court in the present case. It is also submitted that three other High Courts are in favour of the assessee and reliance was placed by him on the following judgements of various High Courts: a) CIT Vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgements cited by both the sides. We finds that this is admitted position that the judgement of Hon ble Jharkhand High court rendered in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (supra) is against the assessee on this very issue but Ld. A.R. for the assessee has cited three more judgements of various High Courts on this very issue which are in favour of the assessee:- - The first judgement is of Hon ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners Pvt. Ltd.(supra) wherein it was held that there is no material or evidence relating to compelling circumstances produced by the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee should be adopted. As per the above discussion, we find that on this issue, there are two views. One view is against the assessee i.e. of Hon ble Jharkhand High Court whereas other view is in favour of the assessee and this view is taken by three different High Courts i.e. Madras, Punjab Haryana Allahabad High Court and under these circumstances, as per the decision of Hon ble Apex court rendered in the case of Vegetable Products (supra), we adopt the view which is in favour of the assessee and hence by respectfully following three judgments of various High Courts cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. In view of this, other contentions raised by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
