9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g channel and not through cash mode. There is no room for allowing the benefit of the loan taken up to ₹ 20,000/ on the reasoning adopted by the CIT (Appeals). The bar operates in three contingencies. First, if the total loan amount, by way of a single transaction exceeds ₹ 20,000/-. Second, it operates where unpaid amount of an earlier loan exceeds ₹ 20,000/-. Third, it operates where the aggregate amount of first and second contingencies taken together exceeds ₹ 20,000/-. At any rate, it is not the case of the assessee that the loan had been taken by it in parts such that one part of the cash loan was for ₹ 20,000/- and the other in excess thereof. In fact the aggregate amount of loan taken by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent : C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan,S.S.C. I.T. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'H' dated 4.8.2006 passed in ITA No. 131 133 (Del)/2005 for the assessment year 1999-2000, on the following question of law:- (a) Whether in view of the division bench judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. M/s Ajanta Dyeing and Printing Mills (supra), the Tribunal was legally justified in disallowing the adjustment of ₹ 40,000/- in the amount of penalty imposed. Briefly, it is undisputed fact that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loans taken in excess of ₹ 20,000/-. Against the order of CIT (Appeals), the revenue as also the assessee filed individual appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has affirmed the order of CIT (Appeals) in so far the said appeal authority deleted the penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- against cash loans taken by the assessee on Saturday and Sunday. However, the departmental appeal restricting the penalty to ₹ 80,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- for the other two loans has been allowed and those penalties have been restored. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the statutory limit of ₹ 20,000/-, penalty could have been imposed only in respect of cash loans taken by the assessee in excess of that amount. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act; (d) any Government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); (e) such other institution, association or body or class of institutions, associations or bodies which the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette - Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit or specified sum, where the person from whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/-. Third, it operates where the aggregate amount of first and second contingencies taken together exceeds ₹ 20,000/-. Thus, the bar operates whether the single amount of loan or multiple amount of loans or unpaid amount of loan taken together with fresh amount of loan exceeds ₹ 20,000/-. At any rate, it is not the case of the assessee that the loan had been taken by it in parts such that one part of the cash loan was for ₹ 20,000/- and the other in excess thereof. In fact the aggregate amount of loan taken by the assessee from Vikas Motor Finance Company was ₹ 1,00,000/- and that from Singh Traders was in excess of ₹ 70,000/-. Thus, the bar created by Section 269SS of the Act is clearly attracted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
