9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Hyderabad dated January 9, 2015, whereby he cancelled the penalty of Rs. 35 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of decorative laminated sheets. A search and seizure action under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee that the amount received in cash towards the share application money not being a loan or deposit, the provisions of section 269SS were not applicable. This explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer, relying on the decision of the hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works P. Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 275 ITR 399 (Jhark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at although the case law relied upon by the Assessing Officer are in favour of the Revenue on the issue under consideration, there are various other judicial pronouncements that are in favour of the assessee on this issue, specifically citing the following : (a) CIT v. Alpex Exports P. Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 297 (Delhi) ; (b) CIT v. I. P. India P. Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 353 (Delhi) ; (c) CIT v. Speed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... celled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D, by following the ratio of the decisions which are in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) and accordingly cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D by following the view which is in favour of the assessee. Her impugned order cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271D is, therefore, upheld and this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
