9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order of CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2005-06, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271D & 271E of the I.T.Act. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that return filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO under summary assessment u/.s143(1), wherein it was observed that as per the tax audit report filed along with the return of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the account of his wife Smt. Lata G. Shah by Rs.12,00,000/- debiting his account with the same amount. Accordingly, the assessee has passed a journal entry debiting Rahul G. Shah loan account and crediting Lata G. Shah loan account. Here, there was no physical receipt from Smt. Lata G. Shah or there was no physical repayment of Rs.12 lac to Mr. Rahul G. Shah. The assessee has also credited Rs.3,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty under section 271E could be imposed for contravening the provisions of section 269T of the Act. 6. Applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, we found that in the instant case there was already credit in the account of Mr. Rahul G. Shah, which was not paid in cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was already there in the books of account amounts to any contravention of provisions of Section 269SS so as to impose penalty u/s.271D&271E. Debiting assessee's account was treated by the AO as repayment of loan and crediting his wife's account was treated by the AO as receipt of loan. 7. Even on the ground of limitation, we found that penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s.271D & 271E, were initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
