TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely. Both the penalties are arising from common transaction and therefore same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that despite notifying for the hearing neither anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. The notice for hearing was served through the registered post as well as through Departmental Representative. On last few occasions i.e. 17.07.2019, 01.10.2019, 11.12.2019, 26.02.2020, 05.03.2020, 14.10.2020, 04.03.2021, 18.05.2021, 02.08.2021, 18.10.2021, 14.12.2021, 07.02.2022, 21.03.2022, 24.05.2022, 31.05.2022 neither anyone attended nor any adjournment was sought. Further, it is to be noted that notice for hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of above 8 parties (i.e. which could be termed as 'original creditor') in the books of account of the assessee were transferred to the account of two other persons namely Ashna Sarin (Rs.1,37,00,000/-) and Akshay Sarin HUF (Rs.6,00,000/-) (i.e. which would be termed as new creditor) by way of passing journal entries in the books of account of the assesseecompany. 3.2 The Addl. CIT initiated the proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act by way of issue show cause notice. It was submitted by the assessee that : a) the original creditors as well as the new creditors belonged to one known as Sarin family and b) loans were transferred as per the request of the persons involved consequent to a family arrangement in the Sarin Family. c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case and in law, the CIT(A) having held that the assessee had contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, erred in not upholding the levy of penalties u/s 271D as the assessee failed to establish the compelling reasons or genuine business constraints or reasonable cause for having transactions in respect of each and every journal entry." 6.1 Similarly, the grounds raised against deletion of penalty u/s 271E are reproduced as under: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,43,00,000/- levied u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt." (ii) On the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man.com 138) are very similar to the facts of this case which is before me. In this case also there was no finding recorded in the assessment orders or in the penalty orders to the effect that the repayments of loans/deposits were not bona fide transactions and were made with a view to evade tax. The appellant submitted that the loans were transferred from some persons of Sarin family ( 'original creditors') to some other persons ('new creditors) by passing necessary journal entries in the books of the appellant. In my view, returning the loan amounts to the 'original creditors' by account payee cheques by the appellant and then receiving the same amount from the 'new creditors' by account payee cheques by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced as under: "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee has repaid loan/deposit by debiting the account through journal entries. The question is, whether such repayment of loan/deposit is in contravention of the modes of repayment set out in section 269T. The argument advanced by the assessee that the bona fide transaction of repayment of loan/deposit by way of adjustment through book entries carried out in the ordinary course of business would not come within the mischief of section 269T cannot be accepted, because, the section does not make any distinction between the bona fide and non-bona fide transactions and requires the entities specified therein not to make repayment of any loan/deposit together with the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|