TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XXI, New Delhi dt. 03.07.2013 pertaining to the AY 2007-08. The Cross Objection is filed by the assessee. 2. Facts of the case:- The facts are brought out at para 3 of the penalty order passed u/s 271D of the Act dt. 10.3.2012 which are extracted for ready reference. M/s Worthwhile Developers P. Ltd. and M/s Jai Krishan Estates P. Ltd. made a MOU on 22.3.2005, M/s Worthwile Developers P. Ltd. invested a sum of ₹ 1,49,42,151/- against purchase of 7885.04 sq.ft. super area of 19 shops in Krishan Apra Plaza. As per MOU, M/s Jai Krishan Estates P. Ltd.was to sell the said shops at the prevailing market price and the sale proceeds collected would then be credited by M/s Jai Krishan E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Accordingly, a penalty of ₹ 1,19,13,736/-, being the amount received in the form of book entries, is being levied u/s 271D of the Act. 4. On appeal the First Appellate Authority deleted the penalty on the ground that the payment has been received through account payee cheque and as such there is no violation of provisions of S.269SS of the Act. 5. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground. 1. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in cancelling the penalty of ₹ 1,19,13,736/- imposed by AO u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. 6. We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Gautam Jain, FCA, the Ld.Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PACL India Ltd. Made certain payments through banking channels to land owners. This payment made on behalf of the assessee was recorded by the assessee in its books by crediting the account of M/s PACL India Ltd. In view of this admitted position, no infringement of s. 269SS of the Act is made out. This Court, in the case of Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (supra), considered a similar case where a company had paid money to the Government of Delhi for acquisition of a land on behalf of the assessee therein. The AO levied a penalty u/s 271D of the Act for alleged violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act since the books of the assessee reflected the liability on account of the lands acquired on its behalf. On appeal, the CIT(A) affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
