9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch over which assessee did not have any control. The assessee immediately acted on the matter and refunded the amount in question. The finding of fact recorded by CIT(A) have not been disputed through any evidence or material on record. Therefore, considering the issue in the light of reasonable cause under section 273B of I.T. Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Law, no penalty is leviable in the matter. In the light of judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [ 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the entire penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA. No. 3869/Del./2017, ITA. No. 3115/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,000 are kept in safe deposit for him. The assessee attended the proceedings. But, did not file any documentary evidence. The A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation of assessee and added back ₹ 16.18 lakhs under section 68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for violation of Section 269SS separately. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271D of the I.T. Act in a sum of ₹ 15,80,000 which is sum equal to the amount of cash loan so taken or accepted. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of assessee noted that the amount of cash loan was never been received by assessee in hand instead the cash has been deposited directly in the Bank account of assessee by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that no penalty is leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521(SC) held as under : For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessment order was passed on the assessee on February 26, 1996, ex-parte. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and because of this the Assessing Officer was satisfied that penalty proceedings unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings separately for violation of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act. He did not record any satisfaction under section 271D of the I.T. Act before initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271D of the I.T. Act. Further, the explanation of assessee on merit clearly suggest that assessee had a reasonable cause for violation to comply with the provisions of Law because no cash given directly to assessee but deposited at Shilong Branch over which assessee did not have any control. The assessee immediately acted on the matter and refunded the amount in question. The finding of fact recorded by Ld. CIT(A) have not been disputed through any evidence or material on record. Therefore, considering the issue in the light of reasonable cause under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
