9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u Bharat what is the urgency or immediate need for the company s business to deposit the same amount in the bank account of the shareholder. Since the assessee has not explained the reasonable cause as per section 273B, which talks about penalty not to be imposed in certain cases we confirm the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1155/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2019 - Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM And Dr. A.L. Saini, AM For the Appellant : Shri Srikumar Banerjee, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR ORDER PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,00,000/- of loan in a mode otherwise than by of an accoount payee cheque or account payee draft and accordingly the assessee company is liable to levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act for assessment year 2009-10. 4. The assessee company during the penalty proceedings submitted the followings: The fact of the case was that ₹ 1,00,000/- was paid in cash to the Managing Director of the company and the said money was deposited to the bank account on the Managing Director on the same date. The Managing Director holds share of the company 90.30% of the total paid up capital of the company. In the assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer had lifted the corporate veil. As the corporate veil was lifted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer in the assessment order was in respect of the sum of ₹ 26,23,630/- paid to the Managing Director, Shri Raju Bharat as incentive on net profit of the company for the F.Y. 2008-09 in place of profit or dividends. This was claimed as deduction in computation of income and was disallowed as business expenditure and added back to the total income u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that in this case the assessee company has violated the provision of section 269T of the Act, and is therefore, liable to pay, by way of penalty a sum equal to the amount of loan or deposit so repaid. In my opinion, it is a fit case for imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the I T Act. As per section 2 (31) of the I TAct, 1961, the terms person includes- (i) An individual (ii) A Hindu undivided family (iii) A company (iv) A firm (v) An association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) A local authority. and (vii) Every artificially judicial person, not failing within any of the preceding sub-clauses From bare reading of section 2(31) of the Act, it is clear that under the I T Act an individual and company are two separate legal entities who are assessed separately. The claim of the appellant that the MD of the company who controls 90. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh and deposited in his own bank account therefore it is a clear violation of accepting the loan in cash which is prohibited by the provision of section 269SS/269TT of the Act. Ld. DR pointed out that giving the loan or repayment of loan otherwise than account payee cheque in excess of ₹ 20,000/- is prohibited, however in the instant case, the assessee company has violated the provision of section 269TT/269SS and therefore the penalty should be levied. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the amount of ₹ 1 lakh was repaid to Shri Raju Bharat, managing director of the company otherwise than pay an account payee cheque. Mr. Raju Bharat is a sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
