9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condonation petition., which are as follows- "Your petitioner states that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of filing the appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are as follows: i) The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 5th August, 2024 which was received by this office on same day i.e. 05.08.2024 and against which appeal was to be filed before Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata within 04.10.2024. Erstwhile jurisdictional Assessing officer i.e. DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri had proceeded on leave from 24.09.2024 and further he retired on superannuation on 30.09.2024. From 01.10.2024, charge was handed over to Smt. T.Y. Bhutia, ACIT, ASR and grounds of appeal was submitted and appeal has not been filed as there occurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a partnership firm furnished its return of income for AY 2016-17. During the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, it was found from the examination of assessee's ledger of M/s Tarai Transport Corporation that the assessee had repaid advance received by it from M/s Tarai Transport Corporation in cash, thereby violating the provision of Section 269T of the Act as a result of which the penalty proceedings u/s 271(e) of the Act was initiated and penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said penalty order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in fact amount was transferred to the account of assessee through banking channel. The Ld. Counsel further submits that in fact the assessee firm had not taken or accepted any loan or deposit or any other specified sum rather in fact paid certain amount on behalf of M/s Tarai Transport Corporation which was reimbursed to it through banking channel so there was no violation of Section 269T of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty after going over the several judicial pronouncements and further giving full emphasis on the order passed by the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s Tarai Transport Corporation for the same assessment year. So, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. Upon h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. It is further pertinent to mention here that Shri Sanjit Kundu is a common partner in both the firms. It is well settled that the withdrawal of addition made in the partners capital account in cash is not a violation of Section 269SS or 269T of the Act. The operative portion of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) held thus: "5.2 I have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal, facts of the case, penalty order passed by the AO, written submission uploaded as well as judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. It has been submitted by the appellant that penalty u/s 271D amounting to Rs 1,00,00,000/- was imposed for the same assessment year on M/s Tarai Transport Corporation allegedly for taking or accepting loan in violatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
