9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A). 3. This Court while admitting the appeals framed the following substantial questions of law: "In DBITA No. 330/2017 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal has erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 37,03,900/- on account of unexplained cash deposits made in bank account? In DBITA No. 329/2017 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal has erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) who deleted the penalty u/s 27ID of the Act amounting to Rs. 33,00,000/- imposed by JCIT, Range, Jaipur on account of unexplained cash deposits made in bank account?" 4. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhi has taken us to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udhary as on 31.03.2011 with his letter dated 11.09.2013. Again the A/R of assessee on 28.10.2013 filed different capital a/c and statement of affairs of both assessee as well as his father Shri Narayan Lal Choudhary as on 31.03.2011. There was a drastic change in both capital account and atatement of affairs. However from perusal of the balance sheets and capital accounts of Shri Narayan Lal Choudhary, submitted by the A/Rs the following facts emerge:- SI. No. Name from whom amount received Amount Capital a/c as on Nature of payment Date of reply of the A/R 1. Sh. Narayan Lal, Choudhary 27,00,000/- Unsecured Loans 16.01.2013 2. Sh. Narayan Lal, Choudhary 27,00,000/- 31.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or if he has made some explanation for the same. Similar views have also been expressed in the case of Sundarshan Cold Storage (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 188 (MP), Kasi Consultant Corporation 311 ITR 419 (Mad.) R.K. Singhal 221 ITR 412 (Raj.) and Bhalotia Eng. Work Ltd. 275 ITR 399 (Jharkhand). In view of the above, it is established that assessee has taken cash loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- in violation of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty of Rs. 33,00,000/- i.e. equal to the amount of Loan accepted in cash. Accordingly, penalty for Rs. 33,00,000/- is imposed on the assessee is terms of section 271D of the I.T. Act. 6. He has also taken us to the observations made by CIT (A) which reads as under: 3.1.2 I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash in violation of section 269SS of the Act. AO has examined on oath of Sh Narayan Lal, father of the assessee but did not arrive at any adverse finding, and also has not made any reference in this regard in the assessment order. Assessee has also submitted that all the cash deposits made in bank accounts are verifiable from the cash flow statements filed before the AO and in the cash flow statement, source of Rs. 9,00,000/- is explained gift received from father Sh Narayan Lal Choudhary and Rs. 24,00,000/-= as gift received from Narayan Lal HUF. Assessee also explained the source of money of Rs. 9,00,000/- = given by father as withdrawals from Savings Bank A/c from SBBJ and source of immediate deposit in SBBJ a/c was sale proceeds of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal and contended that in view of concurrent finding of both the authorities, the transaction of gift is not covered under Section 269SS. In that view of the matter, having benefit of doubt, the finding arrived at by CIT (A) and the Tribunal is not required to be disturbed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. While considering the matter, the CIT (A) has rightly observed that this is not a gift and taking into consideration that the donor has a sufficient fund and that is not in dispute that the amount which has been paid by the HUF was not having sufficient fund. In that view of the matter, we are confirming the order of CIT (A) and the Tribunal. 11. Thus, the issues are answered in favour of assessee against the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
