TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee and its sister concern to the customers. In the absence of any material on record to suggest that the transactions in question were not reasonable or bonafide no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of ₹ 22.99 crores. Deletion of penalty of ₹ 2.10 crores a specific finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the loan was received by the assessee by way of a cheque. The above finding is based on the documents produced before the Tribunal. Nothing is brought on record even in this appeal to suggest that the loan was received otherwise than account payee cheque. Accordingly, deletion of the penalty of ₹ 2.10 crores cannot be faulted - appeal decided in favour of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Both the assessee as well as Triumph Securities Limited have common customers who purchase and sell shares and securities through the assessee as well as Triumph Securities Limited. As a result of the sale / purchase transactions, some customers were liable to pay to the assessee on account of purchase of shares and securities on behalf of the customers. Similarly, the Triumph Securities Limited were liable to pay to the customers the amounts received by them by selling shares / securities belonging to the customers. 4. In the assessment year in question, it was mutually agreed by and between the common customers, the assessee Triumph Securities Limited that the assessee instead of paying the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 2.10 crores, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By order dated 2nd March 2005, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while confirming the penalty of ₹ 2.10 crores held that since transfer of balances of debtors amounting to ₹ 22.99 crores constituted accepting loan or deposit otherwise than by cheque or demand draft in violation of Section 269SS and, therefore, the assessee was also liable to pay penalty of ₹ 22.99 crores under Section 271D of the Act. 7. On further appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal by the impugned order deleted both the penalties on the ground that the said transactions did not constitute violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability of paying / receiving the amounts by the assessee and its sister concern to the customers. In the absence of any material on record to suggest that the transactions in question were not reasonable or bona fide and in view of Section 273B of the Act, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty of ₹ 22.99 crores. 10. As regards the deletion of penalty of ₹ 2.10 crores is concerned, a specific finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the loan of ₹ 2.10 crores were received by the assessee by way of a cheque. The above finding is based on the documents produced before the Tribunal. Though there is some dispute regarding the opportunity being given to the assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
