9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riving income related to agricultural activities, as on salary there was no regular assessment in assessee s case. The Assessing Officer at no point of time disputed the bank statement of the assessee wherein the amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- was transferred in The Berna Gamni Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and the same was shown in the bank statement dated 26-03-2011. The transaction as well as the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal (see note below) The order passed by Ld CIT(A) is against law, equity and natural justice. N.A. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the penalty levied U/S 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is an agriculturist having agricultural income in the form of salary. The Assessing Officer on receipt of information from DDIT (Investigation) observed that assessee accepted loan of Rs. 1,42,000/- during relevant period from The Berna Gamni Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited. Based on the information, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 13-05-2019 for levy of penalty u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 being ITA Nos. 338 339/Ahd/2023 order dated 14-07-2023. The facts are identical and therefore the present appeal should also be allowed. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the penalty order and the order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Departmental Representative that it was mismatching appears to be not correct and thus there was no cash involved in the present transaction. Therefore, section 269SS will not be applicable in the present case and the penalty levied u/s. 271D does not survive. Thus, the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer was not correct in levying the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. The appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
