Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 611 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E - transaction of advance and its receipt back in cash in excess of ₹ 20,000/- - Assessee contended that it is trade advance and 269SS and 269T did not apply to a trade advance - advance, which was received back as the film for which it was given did not run - Held that:- the question of his being paid a booking advance by the movie theatres arises only where he is, as claimed, working as a booking agent, of which there is nothing on record to suggest, much less establish. On the contrary, he is admittedly working as a manager with a business house in the film trade. It is perhaps for this reason that he is known to the assessee; a transaction of lending or advancing could materialize only between parties known to each other; rather, having mutual trust – the assessee working through its partners The claim of the amount loan/deposit being a trade advance, is, as found by the Revenue, wholly unproved (if not disproved). On the contrary, the conduct and the surrounding facts and circumstances point to the contrary, i.e., to it being not so. The same is the assessee’s only explanation for the contravention of sections 269SS and 269T. No reasonable cause for the same has been shown, much less proved, for us to consider the application of section 273B in the facts and circumstances of the case. No reason for interference and, accordingly, confirm the levy of impugned penalty u/s. 271D and 271E - Decided against the assessee.
|