9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttributable to ignorance of statutory provisions of the act. The assessee’s case finds support from the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. V. JCIT (2002 (3) TMI 216 - ITAT DELHI ) where the professional auditors, experts in the field of taxation, did not point out any violation of S. 269SS it was held that it would be too much to expect from the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 29.01.2015 for AY 2009-10. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the decision of the JCIT, Range-2, Kolkata in imposing penalty of ₹ 7.80 lacs u/s. 271D read with section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. At the outset itself, the Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of G. D. Subraya Sheregar v. I. T.O. (2006) 10 378 by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, wherein contravention of provision of S. 269-SS was held to be not applicable in a transaction between a father 'and son. We further find that the fact that the assessee was in need of funds and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of the act. The assessee s case finds support from the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. V. JCIT (2003) 85 ITR 230 (Del) where the professional auditors, experts in the field of taxation, did not point out any violation of S. 269 SS of the Act, it was held that it would be too much to expect from the assessee to know these provisions and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
