9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd there was no repayment made by the assessee during the year, the aforesaid accounts cannot be said of the nature of current account as claimed by the assessee. The assessee has not brought any material to substantiate that assessee has not committed any violation of section 269SS of the act, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271D of the act, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1705/Ahd/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Revenue by: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.R. ORDER PER : AMARJI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the loans or deposits, otherwise than by a account payee cheque or by account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the assessee, if the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit amount to ₹ 20,000/- or more therefore levied penalty u/s. 271D of the act of ₹ 4 lacs for accepting the aforesaid loan amount in cash. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 3.4. I have carefully considered the entire facts of the case and it is observed that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of the above mentioned company, it is found that followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,000 28.10.2013 10,000 19.11.2013 20,000 30.11.2013 20,000 Total 2,30,000 In view of the section 269SS, it is held that the assessee had accepted certain loans amounting to ₹ 2,30,000/- in cash from Shri Anish Nagpal and ₹ 1,70,000/-from Shri Amit Purswani. The appellant Company has submitted that any amount received from the director in the case, the company would not fall with the preview of deposit for levy of penalty for violation of Sec. 269SS of the Act is not found to be correct, as in the section 269SS it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment u/s. 143(3) of the act was finalized on 21st December, 2016. Thereafter additional CIT has levied penalty u/s. 271D of the act on 27th March, 2017 of ₹ 4 lacs on account of accepting loan amounting to ₹ 2,30,000/- in cash from Shri Anish Nagpal and ₹ 1,70,000/- from Shri Amit Purswani in violation of provision of section 269SS of the act. After perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that during the year under consideration directors of the assessee company, Anish Nagpal has given ₹ 2,30,000/- and other director Shri Amit Purswani has also given ₹ 1,70,000/- on different dates as per the copies of ledger account placed in the paper book filed by the assessee. It is also noticed that in the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case it was held that no penalty can be imposed u/s. 278D and 278E because the account was in the nature of current account. However, facts of the case of the assessee are entirely different as there was only cash receipt and was made on different dates from the directors of the assessee company. We have considered the fact and material on record and noticed from the copy of ledger account submitted by the assessee that on the different dates assessee has obtained cash from the two directors and there was no repayment made by the assessee during the year, the aforesaid accounts cannot be said of the nature of current account as claimed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has not brought any material to substantiate that assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
