9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is dismissed. Penalty u/s 271D - Directors of the Company given cash loans in order to enable the Company to incur various expenses including the investment in land - CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s 271D of the Act and deleted the remaining amount relatable to share application/investment - HELD THAT:- The very objection of the CIT(A) appears to be contradictory when documents shown by the assessee and the findings given by the Tribunal [ 2022 (1) TMI 1328 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] . Since the addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer has taken partial penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271D, AO has not segregated the findings independently and has not pointed out how the violation of Section 269SS has taken place in the present 271D proceedings. Thus, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Penalty u/s 271E - It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given explanation before the AO as to how the loan was repaid and that explanation in fact was accepted by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022. Thus, the very finding given by the Tribunal confirms that the assessee has categorically given the explanation related to the repayment of loans which was pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in granting relief of Rs. 87,56,500/- to the assessee against the penalty levied under section 271D of the I.T. Act despite the fact that in the concluding Para No.12 of the appellate order the CIT(A) has mentioned that Ground of Appeal 1 2 are dismissed and also mentioned in the next para that In the result the appeal is Dismissed . 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. ITA No.108/Ahd/2023 by the Assessee 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,96,11,178/- imposed under Section 271D of the Act solely based on presumptions and conjectures and without considering the submissions, explanation of the appellant. 2. The appellant prays that since the penalties imposed under Section 271D are not lawful as the appellant did not have taken at all any unsecured loans from its Directors. The CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,31,79,630/- for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 4,06,21,446/- on the additions sustained by the CIT(A). The quantum of sustained addition is as follows : Sr. No. Description of Additions Amount (Rs.) 1. Unexplained Expenditure u/s. 69C 59,45,153/- 2. Unaccounted Cash Receipts 50,14,800/ 3. Unaccounted Money received for Shares 29,93,693/- 4. Unaccounted Receipts and Expenses 53,06,500/- 5. Unexplained Income 2,05,11,300/- 6. Disallowance of interest incurred on unsecured loan addition 1,50,000/- 7. Disallowance of excessive claim of depreciation 7,00,000/- TOTAL 4,06,21,446 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022 granted relief of Rs. 3,96,31,306/- and sustained the addition of Rs. 9,90,140/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has not made any concealment of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically taken into account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch loans/deposits have been taken in cash have complete access to banking facilities which all the more buttresses the case of the Revenue that it is a willful contravention of the existing law. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the assessee intentionally accepted the said amount in contradiction of provisions of Section 269SS, therefore, penalty of Rs. 6,83,67,678/- was levied on the assessee under Section 271D of the Act. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- and not Rs. 2,85,22,600/- in the penalty order under Section 271D and 271E of the Act. However, this amount of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- as a part of total amount of Rs. 2,85,22,600/- on which penalty proceedings under Section 269SS and 269T have been initiated and since the very initiation of such penalty proceedings under Section 269SS and 269T are illegal and on wrong premises and, therefore, this penalty of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- as levied in the Penalty Order under Section 271D and 271E being bad in law may be deleted. Ld. AR submitted that when the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal in the order dated 13.01.2022. Since the addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 3,96,31,306/- and the Assessing Officer has taken partial penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271D, the Assessing Officer has not segregated the findings independently and has not pointed out how the violation of Section 269SS has taken place in the present 271D proceedings. Thus, appeal of the assessee being ITA No.108/Ahd;/2023 is allowed. 12. As relates to ITA No.109/Ahd/2023 filed by the Assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that in respect of confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- imposed under Section 271E of the Act is solely based on presumption and conjectures. In fact, the assessee did not have taken or repaid any unsecured loans from its Directors but in the present case the assessee has given details and explained the amount for which the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022 has granted the relief and, therefore, there is no violation of Section 271E of the Act. 13. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the penalty under Section 271E of the Act as the assessee had transaction between Preet Patel and Pravin Patel as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
