9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Dushyant K. Mahant, Advs. O R D E R Admit. The following substantial question of law is framed:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified and right in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and deleting the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to pronounce our decision on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 271D. He has also referred to the fact that the authorized share capital of the respondent-assessee was only Rs.1,00,000/-. He has referred to other factual aspects in paragraph 2.5.0. We may record that as per the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals), the respondent company did not have any intention/desire to issue shares and the amount was received to meet urgent business needs. CIT (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t allotted to the depositor. Thus, it has been held that penalty is not leviable in such circumstances. Relying on this order, the penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted." 6. The aforesaid finding is cryptic and does not deal with the factual matrix of the present case. There are specific findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals). The findings given by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 417 was also considered and examined. 8. Thus, the first and the foremost aspect, which has to be considered and examined is whether the amount received was loan or deposit. This aspect has not been considered and examined by the tribunal in spite of the specific findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals). In these circumstances, we answer the aforesaid question of law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
