Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 603 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - assessee had accepted loan in cash otherwise than an account payee cheque or draft, the amount of loans exceeded the limit prescribed u/s 269SS - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence that the assessee has not violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, there is no factual error on the part of the lower authority. But as regards the contention of assessee that these transactions are not loan and accommodative transactions between the assessee and his employer. But the bench noted that on issue there is not material evidence made available by assessee. Assessee has placed on record only the ledger account, from that it is not clear whether the said transactions are considered as loan or the accommodative transactions or sales. It is also not clear whether the employer has received the cheque amount as sales consideration or as the amount as loan to employee in the books of the employer. This basic finding of the fact is not emanating from the records made available. Therefore, bench feels that the ld. AO in the interest of justice bring necessary evidence as to whether the transaction are on account of sales or on account of loan recorded will decide the applicability of the provision of section 269SS of the Act. It is also not clear as to whether the provision of section 269T is initiated at the other hand or not. Thus, fasting the liability on the assessee without bringing all the relevant facts on record is not correct and therefore, we are of the considered view that let the ld. JCIT should after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to decide the issue afresh but by providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed not to take unnecessary adjournment on frivolous ground and submit the documents concerning the issue in question. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Validity of penalty order on limitation - On being consistent to the view so taken in Seetharama Lakshmi Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors [1977 (3) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that looking to the present set of facts and circumstances the provision of section 275(1)(a) will apply so we see no merits in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee and therefore, the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
|