TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan of same amount to M/s. Chandravadan J. Dalal by way of journal entries in the books of account. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has not repaid the amount either by cheque or DD as provided under section 269T and therefore repayment of loan other than by an account payee cheque or account payee Draft is an act in violation of section 269T. Accordingly he levied penalty of ₹ 1,07,25,500/-. It was assessee s submission that the assessee has not repaid the amount in cash and was adjusted by way of book entries and the book entries does not come under the purview of violation of provisions of section 269T. He has given detailed reasons as extracted in para 4 of the CIT(A) s order but the learned CIT(A) following his own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of ₹ 1,38,50,000/- under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,38,50,000/- under section 271E of the Act on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.1 At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative of the as has pointed out that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Mumbai Bench A of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3316 3317/Mujm/2004, for the assessment year 1999-2000, by observing as under: The assessee filed detailed explanation regarding each and every payment and copy of such explanation is at Pages 18 to 20 of the paper book. Admittedly, all these ten repay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not warranted. Consequently the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Similarly in assessee s own case in 271D, the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 535/Mum/2005 has held vide para 4 of the order as under: - 4. In ITA No. 535/Mum/2007, the only issue raised by the assessee is regarding imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,50,58,715/- under section 271D of the income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 1,50,58,715/- on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4.1 At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative of the assessee has pointed out that the issue in the dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Mumbai Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
