9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is active collusion with the lender in evading the taxes. In the absence of survey proceedings conducted in the premises of Shri. A. Kannan, this transaction would not have come to light. Valid explanation for acceptance of loan in cash, cannot a valid reason for repayment of loan in cash. Reliance placed by the Authorised Representative on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case for deletion of penalty for violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act does not hold good. Similarly, the ratio decision in the case of Manohar Lal Thakral [ 2011 (1) TMI 538 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] cannot be accepted having regard to the cogent reading of provisions of Section 269T and 275A of the Act. It is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act was not correct as well as not automatic and ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 273B of the Act were completely overlooked, thereby vitiating in relation thereto. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order imposing penalty under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the plea of commercial expediency in accepting/repaying the loan/advance exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash would constitute reasonable cause and hence ought to have appreciated that the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,00,000 ₹ 50,000/01.04.2008 ₹ 50,000/02.04.2008 ₹ 50,000/03.04.2008 ₹ 50,000/04.04.2008 2009-10 2,00,000 ₹ 50,000/01.05.2008 ₹ 50,000/02.05.2008 ₹ 50,000/03.05.2008 ₹ 50,000/04.05.2008 2009-10 2,00,000 ₹ 50,000/01.06.2008 ₹ 50,000/02.06.2008 ₹ 50,000/03.06.2008 ₹ 50,000/04.06.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing judgments:- 01. CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bojoria HUF, 263 ITR 487 (Gau) 02. CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani, 260 ITR 590 (Raj) 03. CIT vs. Parma Nand, 180 CTR 489 (Del) 04. Eatachi Agencies 248 ITR 525 (Bom) It is further submitted that when the genuineness of the transaction was accepted mere technical violation of law does not entail levy of penalty. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. The Assessing Officer considered the explanation offered and held that intention of the parties are clear to conceal the income and assessee failed to establish business exigencies in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evied u/s.271E of the Act is not permissible, in this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manohar Lal Thakral, 93 Taxmann. Com 156. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal relates to whether imposition of penalty u/s.271E of the Act is justified on the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the present case, loans were repaid in cash. Provisions of Section 273B of the Act provides that no penalty u/s.271E of the Act can be levied in case, when it was proved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
