9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of provision of section 269T - repayment of loan was made in cash - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record suggesting that the loan amount was repaid in cash by the assessee. The revenue has considered the terms of loan as if the same has been repaid in cash. There is no receipt by the person who has given loan to the assessee accepting or acknowledging the repayment of the loan in cash by the assessee. Even in the statement recorded by the revenue authorities, nothing of this sort is stated by Shri L.N. Gupta, father of Shri Anil Gupta. Therefore, under the facts of the present case and in the absence of the proof that assessee had made repayment of loan in cash, in our considered view, imposition of penalty u/s 271E would not be justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and in law, the learned A.O. erred in imposing penalty of section 271D of ₹ 10.00 lacs without appropriate reasons and justification. 4. Because the Ld. Commissioner IT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of assessee and confirmed the additions of ₹ 10,00,000.00 lacs as cash deposits without appropriate opportunity of hearing. 5. The appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts are that a search seizure operation was carried out at the residential premises of Gupta sons group of cases u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act ) on 28.10.2010. During the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271D of the Act and submitted that there is no ambiguity either on facts or on law. Therefore, the A.O. was justified in imposing the penalty. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the assessee has not challenged the addition of this amount. Therefore, the factum of obtaining loan is proved. Considering the rival submissions and the facts available on record, the assessee could not controvert the finding of the authorities below in respect of the evidences gathered during the search which proves receipt of loan in cash, therefore, we do not see a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before the A.O., it was submitted by the assessee that there is no evidence suggesting that the loan was repaid in cash. However, the A.O. did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to impose penalty u/s 271E of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the imposition of penalty. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty has been levied purely on the guess work. He relied on the provisions of section 271E of the Act and also the provisions of section 269T. He submitted that the penalty can be levied only in the event where the assessee has repaid the loan in cash. It is not the case where the authorities below have found any evidence of making repayment of loan in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
