2024 (2) TMI 334 - ITAT INDORE

Penalty u/s 271D & 271E - allegation of cash loan having been taken/repaid - A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in case of one “PATH Group” including assessee and the assessee was managing director of “PATH” and a key person of “PATH Group” - HELD THAT:- We find that both sides are ad idem to the point that the material on the basis of which the JCIT imposed penalties u/s 271D and 271E are same as in case of appeals of “PATH”. We further note that in the appeals of “PATH”, the first appellate authority as well as ITAT have concurrently disagreed and rejected the observations/inferences/ conclusions drawn by assessing authority. Since there is nothing new to be considered or analyed in present appeal, we adopt the same reasoning and same view as taken in PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD. [2024 (2) TMI 241 - ITAT INDORE] and accordingly hold that the orders passed by CIT(A) in present appeals deleting the penalties are in order and do not require any interference from our side.

Thus, the CIT(A) means to say that if the factum of taking or repaying loan is itself disputed, there cannot be any default as contemplated u/s 269SS or 269T. In simpler words, section 269SS or 269T has no application when the transactions itself are disputed, those sections can only apply to un- disputed transactions or the existence of the transactions attained finality. We also find merit in this observation/conclusion made by Ld. CIT(A).

The above discussions and the reasoning mentioned therein brings us to conclude that the penalties imposed by AO in present cases are not sustainable. Consequently, we are deleting the same. The revenues’ grounds are dismissed.