9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the sake of convenience. 2. The appeal being ITA Nos. 599/Kol/2009 ITA No.42/Kol/ 2010 are time barred. We have heard the parties and perused the condonation petition. We find that the revenue filed the second appeal combinedly within the stipulated time with one forwarding letter only. The Registry of the ITAT after scrutiny informed that the appeal being ITA No. 999/Kol/2008 has been taken against u/s. 271D only and one more appeal against u/s. 271E to be filed. On that basis the revenue filed two separate appeal being ITA No. 599/Kol/2009 and ITA No. 42/Kol/2010. Hence, we find that there is reasonable cause for filing the appeals in late and we condone the delay in filing the appeals and the same are being disposed of on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee while relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/s. 271D and 271E is unwarranted and uncalled for. He failed to appreciate the spirit behind the insertion of the particular provision. He also contended that the Assessing Officer should have considered the circumstances for which the assesee had to give cash for smooth running of the business of the assessee company. He also contended that the Assessing Officer considering the exigencies of business should not have merely imposed penalty only for some technical defects. He also contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. George Bros. vs. ACIT 47 TTJ 434 (Coch) vi) ACIT vs. G.P. Taparia (2004) 84 TTJ (Jd) 34 vii) Hernendra C. Shah v. Addl CIT ITA No.1129/Ahd/2010 viii) Karnataka Ginning Pressing Factory vs. Jt. CIT (2001) 72 TTJ 307 ix) Jay Builders vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 77 TTJ (Mumbai) 383 x) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 263 ITR 487 (Gau) xi) CIT vs. Parma Nand (2003) 266 ITR 255 (Del) xii) Industrial Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT 73 ITD 252 (Hyd) xiii) ACIT v. Alfa Hydromec (P) Ltd. 99 TTJ 405 (Jd) xiv) Farrukhahad Investment (I) Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 85 lTD 230 (Del) xv) CWT v. C. Agarwala And Others (1983) 140 ITR 687 (Orissa) xvi) Chandrapal Bagga v. ITAT 261 ITR 67 (Raj) xvii) Chaturbhuj Java v. R.G. Nistur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meeting the business needs. The advances received does not bear any interest and also does not contain any stipulation with respect to time for return of such advance. Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. G.P.Taparia (2004) 84 TTJ (Jd) 34 and Mumbai Bench in the case of Karnataka Ginning Pressing Factory vs. Jt. CIT (2001) 72 TTJ (Mumbai) 307 have held that the money received or paid in the above circumstances specially between sister concerns are current account transactions and at best can be treated in the nature of advance and not loan or deposit as contemplated in sec.269SS or 269T. Further the advances received by the appellant were from proper source and there is no doubt the genuineness of the transactions. In such circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
