9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hanthai Periyar Nagar, Pondicherry on 08-09-2011. Shri A.Kannan was running un-licensed financing business. He use to lend money on pronotes. Books of Account and supporting documents were impounded during the course of survey. During the examination of books it transpired that the entire business of lending and accepting re-payment of loan amounts was done in cash. During survey, it was noticed that the assessee had also taken a loan of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs in cash from Shri A.Kannan and the same was re-paid in instalments in cash. Penalty proceedings u/s.271D for taking loan in cash and violating the provisions of section 269SS in AY.2008-09 were initiated. Similarly, penalty proceedings u/s.271E were initiated in the AYs.2008-09 & 2009-10 for re-payment of loan in cash in violation of the provisions of section 269T. The assessee had re-paid the loan amount in cash instalments of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs each on various dates during the period relevant to the AYs.2008-09 & 2009-10. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee filed an affidavit dt.22-08-2012 before the Assessing Officer admitting that the loan of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs was taken from Mr.Kannan by way of cash on 19-07-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive back the advance in cash instalments. The ld.AR further contended that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to put-forth his case by the authorities below. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in his penalty order has relied on the statement made by Shri A.Kannan wherein he has admitted that he is running money lending business and all lendings are made by him in cash and repayments are received back in cash. The assessee was not afforded opportunity to examine the statements in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, Shri Guru Bhashyam, appearing on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the findings of CIT(Appeals) in confirming levy of penalty u/s.271D & 271E. The ld.DR submitted that the assessee has been changing its stand. In an affidavit filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had categorically stated that the loan in cash has been taken for personal purpose. No compelling reason what-so-ever was mentioned in the affidavit for taking loan in cash. The ld.DR placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of P.Muthukaruppan Vs. JCIT in ITA Nos. 220 to 228/Mds/2014 decided on 29-05-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fered should be substantiated by documentary evidence. 7. In the instant case, the assessee accepted Rs. 20.00 Lakhs from Mr.Kannan of Puducherry on 19-07-2007 in cash. The assessee filed an affidavit dt.22-08-2012 before the Assessing Officer admitting the fact that he has taken a loan of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs from Mr.Kannan by way of cash on 19-07-2007 and repaid the same by cash on several dates. The loan was stated to be taken for his personal purposes. On 21-08-2012, the assessee filed letter along with copies of return of income, statement for the AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10, bank statement of ICICI bank for the period from 01-04-2007 to 31-03-2009. In the said letter, the assessee stated that the cash was received as advance towards land transaction. Not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty to the extent equal to the amount of loan taken u/s.271D as well as penalty u/s.271E to the extent of amount of loan repaid in cash in the AYs.2008-09 & 2009-10. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee gave following reason for accepting the amount of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs in cash. "He received an advance of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came out with a plea that the assessee entered into deal with Mr.Kannan for sale of land to meet the tax demand of a firm in which he is a partner. There is no document on record or evidence to show that there was any agreement with respect to sale of land. The assessee has placed on record documents to show that there was tax liability on the firm in which assessee is a partner. However, no explanation has been offered as to what prevented the assessee to place these documents before the authorities below. The contention of the ld.AR that sufficient opportunity was not given by the tax authorities is not tenable. After seeking several adjournments, the assessee appeared before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 06-08-2012. He was asked to furnish written submissions and financial statements for the period relevant to AYs.2008-09 & 2009-10, Bank statements etc. On 21-08-2012, the assessee furnished letter giving explanation and the aforesaid documents. The Bank statement and the copy of demand notice from the Commercial Tax Office were available with the assessee. The ld.AR of the assessee has not been able to give any reason for not furnishing the same before the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
