9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer. We find that there is no discussion as to why those two decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case respectively dated 31.10.2013 [ 2013 (10) TMI 1327 - ITAT CHENNAI] and 22.7.2014 [ 2014 (7) TMI 1329 - ITAT CHENNAI] could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, there are two decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, which held that the assessee had a reasonable cause and consequently entitled to the benefit of Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the decision in the case of the assessee s brother M.Sougoumarin [ 2018 (5) TMI 1731 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is distinguishable on facts and this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial questions of law : i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in restoring the action of the Original Authority/Assessing Officer in imposing penalty under Section 271D of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2012-13 on the presumption of violation of Section 269SS of the Act while overlooking the provisions of Section 273B of the Act ? and ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in restoring the action of the Original Authority/Assessing Officer in imposing penalty under Section 271E of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 on the presumption of violation of Section 269T of the Act while overlooking the provisions of Section 273B of the Act? 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to the decisions cited by the assessee before it, thought fit to follow the case of the assessee s father in ITA.Nos.220 to 228/ Mds/2014 dated 29.5.2014 and sustained the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 9. On a reading of the common order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal did not render any finding as to why the decisions in the assessee s own case in ITA.Nos.1820 to 1825/Mds/ 2013 dated 31.10.2013 and ITA.Nos.2047 to 2051/Mds/ 2013 dated 22.7.2014 were not applicable. 10. It is seen that the Tribunal noted the submissions made by the assessee that his case was covered by those two decisions. If such is the submission made by the assessee before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is enjoined upon a dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee s appeal. Therefore, it is also submitted that the Court should follow the said decision in the case of M.Sougoumarin and sustain the order passed by the Tribunal in the instant case. 12. The admitted legal principle is that the Tribunal is the last fact finding Authority in the hierarchy of remedies under the Act. The scope of adjudication by this Court has been clearly circumscribed under the Statute, which can be culled out by reading the provisions of Section 260A of the Act and other related provisions. The Tribunal, as the last fact finding Authority/Forum, had held that the assessee had a reasonable cause to be entitled to the benefit of Section 273B of the Act, which states that notwithstanding anything contained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding ₹ 20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the Act and that there was no question of law, not to speak of any substantial question of law, involved in those appeals. 15. However, in the instant case, there are two decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, which held that the assessee had a reasonable cause and consequently entitled to the benefit of Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the decision in the case of the assessee s brother M.Sougoumarin is distinguishable on facts and this decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they are not entitled to the benefit under Section 273B of the Act. 19. We are not inclined to examine the merits of the matter nor make an attempt to answer the substantial questions of law, as we are of the considered view that the matters require to be reconsidered by the Tribunal for the reasons we have set out in the preceding paragraphs. It is for the Tribunal to take note of the fact and deal with the earlier orders passed by its Coordinate Bench respectively dated 31.10.2013 and 22.7.2014, which ended in favour of the assessee. 20. For the above reasons, these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration bearing in mind the observations made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
