TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh cheques were wrongly mentioned in the books of account as cash withdrawals. Therefore, on overall examination of facts and materials on record, it is very much evident that the repayment of loan by the assessee to Mr. S. S. Prasad and Smt. S. Vijay Kumari were through account payee cheques. Hence, there is no violation of provisions contained under section 269T of the Act thereby, attracting the penal provision of section 271E. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271E - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.147/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2015 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly the facts are the assessee, a society is registered under section 12AA of the Act. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income at nil after claiming exemption under section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. The assessee-society runs two nursing schools, viz., M/s. Supriya School of Nursing at Kakinada and M/s. St. Mary's College of Nursing at Visakhapatnam. During the course of assessment proceedings, for the impugned assessment year it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had purchased land admeasuring ac.12.36 gts., at Maddur (v), Shabad (M), Ranga Reddy District from Mr. Narasimha Reddy and three others for a sum of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer, but through account payee cheques. It was submitted by the assessee that because of some clerical mistake the payments were wrongly shown as made in cash in the books of account. In support of such contention, the assessee furnished ledger account copies along with bank statement of M/s. Supriya School of Nursing, Kakinada bearing S. B. A/c. No. 11117303661. The assessee also submitted confirmation letters from the recipients to establish its claim. The Additional Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), however, was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He observed that the repayment of loan claimed to have been made in cash is different from the repayment of loans mentioned in the ledger accounts sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk of India, Kakinada Branch in the name of M/s. Supriya School of Nursing as well as the confirmations obtained from Axis Bank, Himayatnagar Branch, certifying that cheques issued by the assessee amounting to ₹ 8,75,000, ₹ 9,00,000 and ₹ 5,00,000 were credited to the bank account of Smt. Vijay Kumari and Mr. S. S. Prasad January 22, 2008 and March 27, 2008 respectively. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on considering the submissions of the assessee and going through the evidences produced by the assessee, found that the bank statement of State Bank of India relating to the account of M/s. Supriya Nursing Home as well as certificate issued by Axis Bank, Himayatnagar Branch clearly establish that the repayme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh account payee cheques but due to a clerical mistake it was wrongly shown as cash payments in the audited books of account. Though, before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax the assessee has submitted the bank statements and revised ledger account copy to establish the fact that the repayment to the concerned persons were through account payee cheques but the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax has rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has taken two separate loans and repayment through cheques relate to a different loan than what has been shown in the audited books of account. However, as can be seen from the evidence on record as well as discussions made by the first appellate authority, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt payee cheques. Hence, there is no violation of provisions contained under section 269T of the Act thereby, attracting the penal provision of section 271E. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271E. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 6. Though, the Department has also raised the issue of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) entertaining additional evidence without giving opportunity to the assessing authority, but, at the time of hearing neither the learned Departmental representative could point out what are those evidences entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
