Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora Versus JCIT-25 (2) , Mumbai

Penalty under section 271D read with section 269SS - agricultural income receipt - Held that:- The assessee has explained that the amount was out of the proceeds of agricultural income which was deposited pertaining to the share of the family members which was deposited in the bank account held by him jointly with his son. Further, we find that the assessee had also furnished copies of affidavits wherein the wife of the assessee Sayarkunwar Deora and daughter in law of the assessee Bhuvnesh Deor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eceived any loan from his family members. The nature of deposits has been duly explained. The other family members of the assessee have never admitted that they had given any loan to the assessee rather the plea is that the amount has been deposited in the joint saving bank account of the family. - Penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora - Held that:- We find that from the record that the said account in question was jointly held by the assessee along with Shri N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appened to be the wives of the assessee and his son (Joint account holders). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case of giving loan by the said persons to the assessee. In our view, the lower authorities were not justified in levying the impugned penalty under section 271D - Decided in favour of assessee - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - AO found certain amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee - Held that:- Undisputedly, the assessment proceedings and the pen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d circumstances of the case do not suggest that the claim of the assessee has been proved to be wrong or false. The factum of ownership of the agricultural land of the assessee has not been denied. Under these circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.7093/M/2014 - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dispose of these appeals after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative. First we take up the assessee s appeal bearing ITA No.7093/M/2014. ITA No.7093/M/2014 3. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the confirmation of penalty under section 271D read with section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) noted that the assessee had deposited ₹ 17 lakh in his bank account during financial year 2008-09. Out of this amount the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n question had been deposited in the account of the assessee out of the agricultural income from the land of the family. The assessee also furnished relevant documents pertaining to agricultural land/agricultural income. The AO, however, held that the assessee has not been able to produce evidence of agricultural activity. He, therefore, added the said amount as unexplained income. He also levied the penalty under section 271D against the assessee for receiving cash loans from the above said per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m agricultural land was deposited in the said account, one is the wife of the assessee namely Sayar Kunvar and the other is Bhuvnesh Deora who is the daughter in law of the assessee. The assessee has explained that the amount was out of the proceeds of agricultural income which was deposited pertaining to the share of the family members which was deposited in the bank account held by him jointly with his son. Further, we find that the assessee had also furnished copies of affidavits wherein the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd of Bhuvnesh Deora. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had received any loan from his family members. The nature of deposits has been duly explained. The other family members of the assessee have never admitted that they had given any loan to the assessee rather the plea is that the amount has been deposited in the joint saving bank account of the family. 7. So far as the penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is concerned, we find that f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n pleaded that the other two ladies have also deposited the said amount in the family account who happened to be the wives of the assessee and his son (Joint account holders). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case of giving loan by the said persons to the assessee. In our view, the lower authorities were not justified in levying the impugned penalty under section 271D upon the assessee. The same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. ITA No.7094/M/2014 8. Now coming to the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ced the relevant documents of ownership of the land, however, submitted that he had given the said land on contract and he himself did not carry out the agricultural operations. It was explained that the assessee was having total land of 4.32 hectors which produced 130 quintals of food grains out of which his share was 97 quintals and that the balance had been distributed to the cultivators. He also submitted the name and addresses of the cultivators. The AO, however, held that since the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ord, it is undisputed that the assessee is having agricultural land of 4.32 hectors. The additions have been made in this case on account of failture of the assessee to furnish evidences regarding the carrying out the agricultural operations. Whereas plea of the assessee had been that the land was given on contract for cultivation and the proceeds of his share out of the agricultural income was deposited in his bank account. Though in the assessment proceedings, the AO made the addition as the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version