9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the principle of law laid down by this hon'ble court in the case of CIT v. P. K. Shamsudheen in I. T. A. No. 239 of 2011, is the Appel late Tribunal justified in law and facts in confirming the order of the Com missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Cochin, in I. T. A. No. 4/Alp/CIT(A)-IV/ 2010-11 and confirming the levy of penalty under section 271D ? (ii) Did not the Appellate Tribunal err in not following the binding precedence in the decision in P. K. Shamsudheen's case as well as the decisions of the other hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration for the above assessment year. But we are concerned only with one controversy, whether assessee has explained with sufficient reason for receiving cash deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000 in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer, after seeking explanation from the assessee, proceeded with the assessment and imposed penalty. This came to be challenged before the first appellate authority and the appeal came to be partly allowed remanding back the matter to the Assessing Officer with specific direction not to consider receipts which were below Rs. 20,000. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-assessee approached the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after referring to its ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orance and further contends that the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. So far as the first appellate authority for verification of the factual situation whether the entire cash receipts, which was a subject matter of penalty were Rs. 20,000 and above or below Rs. 20,000, remanded back the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual situation while proceeding with the matter afresh. In other words, there is a clear direction that all receipts below Rs. 20,000 need not be taken into consideration and only those receipts which are Rs. 20,000 and above should be taken into consideration. However, going through the orders of the Assessing Officer, the appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal, we do not find any consistency in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the loan or deposit by way of account payee cheque or demand draft a matter to be explained by the assessee. In other words, the burden is on the assessee to establish what was the reasonable cause for not receiving the loan or deposit by way of account payee cheque or a demand draft. It is not a single transaction but several transactions which have to be explained by the appellant-assessee. Though there is no specific consistent stand as stated above on behalf of the appellant-assessee, since the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, so far as the factual situation whether all transactions were Rs. 20,000 and above, we are of the opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
