9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions 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 section 273B of I.T. Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Law, no penalty is leviable in the matter. Considering the above discussion 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose to study in foreign country and therefore there is no mention in the assessment order in respect of separate proposal is being forwarded to Addl. CIT, Gandhinagar Range for initiation of penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act in contravention of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Both the above authorities have erred in overlooking the material fact that there was a reasonable cause as contemplated under section 273 B of the Act for accepting such loan in cash from Shri Hasmukhbhai Patei. 5. The appellant craves leave for modification/amendment in any of tu ground of appeal. 2. There is a delay of three days in filing of appeal. And in support of its contention, assessee file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isa for study in foreign country. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant also submitted the confirmation from friends and relatives to the A.O. along with PAN; address and contra bank account of creditors for his verification. 10. Assessee contended that the A.O. was satisfied with the said explanation and noted that the appellant has explained the reasons and purpose for collecting cash from friends and relatives and deposited in his bank account (para-3 of his order) 11. On perusal of the assessment order passed on 08-09-2014, the A.O. has initiated penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the addition made by him only. 12. Surprisingly, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the A.O. in the assessment order noted that assessee was asked to explain source of the cash deposit in her bank account maintained with State Bank of India. The assessee attended the proceedings before A.O. and filed reply along with letter of Mr. W. Sutong that Shri P.V. Iyer was his family friend and in July, 2009, Shri P.V. Iyer informed Mr. W. Sutong about his housing loan. On 8th September, 2009, Mr. W. Sutong deposited ₹ 16 lakhs, the amount received out of his business receipts, in assessee's joint bank account with SBI Account. On learning about the transaction, Shri P.V. Iyer, husband of assessee realised that this is not right way to accept such a huge amount and he returned back the amount of ₹ 14 lakhs on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 14 lakhs on the same day, whereas another ₹ 1 lakh was refunded merely after two days.Therefore, penalty to the extent of ₹ 15 lakhs was cancelled. The penalty for ₹ 80,000 was confirmed. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the addition of ₹ 16,18,000 in assessment year under appeal on quantum remained subject matter in appeal before ITAT, Delhi Bench in Departmental Appeal in ITA.No.4579/2013 and vide order dated 20th March, 2015, the departmental appeal has been dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) in this case deleted the addition of ₹ 15,80,000 by considering the explanation of assessee as is noted in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed on the basis of the original assessment order could not still survive when that assessment order had been set aside because the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation of the penalty proceedings would also not survive. On further appeals : Held, dismissing the appeals, that in the fresh assessment order there was no satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act though in tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
