9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts while imposing section 271D penalty regarding the alleged cash loan(s) availed form its Managing Director in current account of Rs. 59,02,330/-, we note that it stand from day one was that the said amount was not only meant to meet the day to day expenses on the construction sites but also it involved overwhelming genuineness element therein. We note in this factual backdrop that the very issue had arisen between the parties in preceding assessment year 2012-13 as well wherein learned co-ordinate bench's order dt. 27.04.2021 in ITA No. 162/Hyd/2018 has restored the same back to the Assessing Officer as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the current account could not be considered as a loan or advance. Further it was also found that the assessee filed a letter dated 29.09.97 and in that letter he explained that the amount received from Mr. S.V.S. Manian had been shown as "unsecured loan from directors" in the Balance Sheet. As per the Companies Act, under Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules 1975, under Rule 2(b)(ix), deposit does not include any amount received from a Director or a shareholder of a Private Limited Company. Therefore the transaction between the appellant and the Director cum Shareholder is not a loan or deposit and it is only current account in nature and no interest being charged for the above transaction. 5. In the foregoing conclusions, we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o did not offer to tax the amounts received from M/s. Murugan Enterprises. This unaccounted income is given as cash loan to the appellant company. Section 269SS is brought into statute to block the introduction of black money in the form of cash receipts, more particularly in the cases where sources are unaccounted/unexplained. Therefore, the facts of the case clearly attract provisions of section 271D and explanation given by the appellant does not constitute reasonable cause U/s. 273B, therefore the appeal is dismissed." 7. Before us, the Ld. AR argued by stating that the Managing Director of the assessee company had extended cash to the company for meeting its day-to-day expenses, such as payment for daily labourers etc., on-sites whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to examine that no unexplained funds are introduced in the business of the assessee Company as loan from the Managing Director and if it found that the source of fund obtained from the Managing Director of the assessee Company is explained then delete the penalty levied invoking the provisions of section 271D of the Act. If found otherwise, the Ld. AO shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit." 3. We thus adopt the above detailed discussion mutatis mutandis and restore the instant issue as well back to the Assessing Officer in the very terms. It would be appreciated if the learned Assessing Officer pass a contiguous order in both these assessment years after examining all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
