9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a clear case of receipt of cash by the assessee in violation of section 269SS - no justification for accepting loans in cash even through banking channels were available and also utilized by these two lenders. The appellant required money for hospital premises but there were no compelling reasons for accepting the cash as such - appellant is well educated doctor and cannot claim to be ignorant of law in this regard - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1540/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Laliet Kumar, JM For the Assessee : Shri M. R. Bhagwat For the Revenue : Shri Sanghamitra Khobragaae ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 Shri Ganesh Bharat Vyawahare 9,00,000/- 26,192/- 9,26,192/- 4 Shri Rahul Katariya 7,94,459/- 55,541/- 8,50,000/- 33,94,459/- 27,72,655/- 61,67,114/- 4. In response to the Assessing Officer s show-cause notice for invoking the provisions of section 271D r.w.s. 269SS of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee replied and submissions revolve around the urgency and compulsion to take loan in cash. However, there is no e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compulsion for contravention of provisions of section 269SS. However, the assessee has failed on both the counts. He has not been able to prove the genuineness of the loans nor the urgency or compulsion for contravention of provision of section 269SS. The discussion in the paragraphs below clearly brings out this fact. 5. Further, the Assessing Officer analyzed each of these cash loans in his order involving all the three creditors and also examined the reasonable cause issues provided to the assessee u/s 271B of the Act. Eventually, the Assessing Officer held that it is fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The contents of para 13 and 14 of the penalty order are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is entitled to relief on the legal ground. On this legal ground, ld. Counsel mentioned that the penalty order passed on 29.11.2016 is time barred and the six months expired on 31st October, 2016. 8. On this issue, ld. DR for the Revenue read out the relevant provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act and submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order in time and he has time to 31st March, 2017 to pass the penalty order. 9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 312. Decision of the Tribunal on the legal issue 10. We heard both the parties on this legal issue and perused the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reply of the appellant. As far as loan of Shri Rajiv Keshav Karande and Shri Anil Keshav Karande claimed to be brothers of the appellant, I do not find any justification for accepting loans in cash even through banking channels were available and also utilized by these two lenders. The appellant required money for hospital premises but there were no compelling reasons for accepting the cash as such. It must be appreciated that the appellant is well educated doctor and cannot claim to be ignorant of law in this regard. In any case ignorance of law cannot be excuse for non-levy penalty. In other two cases the issue was examined and source of loan could not be explained satisfactorily before JCIT during the course of penalty proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
