TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cab drivers etc. However, ld. ACIT has clearly demonstrated that no such adjustment against cost of fuel was ever done against the advance, on the other hand but such amounts were repaid by the assessee in cash. Coming to the contention of the ld. Authorised Representative that if the loans were disbelieved Sec. 68 of the Act alone could have been applied, ld. Assessing Officer having accepted the loans the line of argument is irrelevant. Considering these circumstances, we are of the opinion that penalty u/s. 271D as well as 271E of the Act for violation of Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act were rightly imposed, assessee having failed to give a reasonable cause for not levying such penalty. - Decided against assessee - I.T.A. Nos. 3011 & 3077/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. R.Durai Pandian, JCIT. ORDER Per Abraham P. George, Accountant Member These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against orders dated 29.09.2016 and 18.10.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai confirming levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.01.2012 Cash in hand Payment 1730 1,00,000 10.1.2012 Cash in hand Payment 1775 1,00,000 18.01.2012 Cash in hand Payment 1829 1,00,000 25.1.2012 Cash in hand Payment 1872 1,00,000 29.1.2012 Cash in hand Payment 1892 1,00,000 15.02.2012 Cash in hand Payment 2004 50,000 18.3.2012 Cash in hand Payment 2216 50,000 24.03.2012 Cash in hand Payment 2261 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending only their workers/ assistance for filing the fuel, will choose to make payment, it in advance to reduce the cash handling by the workers and in some occasions to fix the fuel rate in case of increasing trend. However, each payment /receipt will not exceed the stipulated' limit of ₹ 20,OOO/-.. We will consolidate two/ three days transactions and enter in' the books of account under Single entry In the account Sundry Debtors , lf the advance / security deposit has not been utilized for more that 6 to 9 months, we tend to return the money to avoid dispute future. As said above, the repayment entry also made in the books of accounts consolidated for two / three days. However, each payment / receipt will be less than ₹ 20,000/- per person. Hence, I wish to bring to . your notice that I have not violated the provisions of f section 269SS/ 269T. As reading in the books of account was made on consolidated basis, prima facie it appears that I have violated the provisions. However, I have not violated the provisions of section 269SS/269T, , All these transaction have also been explained orally to the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny proceedings. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Export 14200 14200 25.01.2012 14.05.2011 178 Radha Export 16800 16800 25.03.2012 26.05.2011 215 Radha Export 15100 15100 25.03.2012 02.10.2011 578 Radha Export 13100 13100 27.03.2012 06.04.2011 29 Baskaran Travels 10800 10800 24.12.2011 07.04.2011 35 Baskaran Travels 16800 16800 03.01.2012 08.04.2011 37 Baskaran Travels 19100 19100 29.01.2012 26.05.2011 215 Baskaran Travels 17100 17100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the previous year, ld ACIT came to a conclusion that there were violation of both sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. He levied penalty both u/sec. 271D and 271E of the Act at a sum of ₹ 14,40,000/- each. 4. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeals before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against penalty levied u/s. 271D as well as 271E of the Act. Contention of the assessee before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that each of the amount received as well as repaid were below Rupees twenty thousand and hence Sections 269SS and 269T of the Act were not attracted. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed by any of the arguments raised by the assessee. He upheld the order of the ld. ACIT citing the following reasons. 1. The appellant is taking advances upon advances from the same person without settling/utilizing the earlier amount received. 2. The' vouchers were not produced during the original assessment proceedings. The vouchers produced during the penalty proceedings reveal various infirmities as recorded bv the AO. 3. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Muthukaruppan vs Joint CIT reported in [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was not possible to receive advances in cash. According to him, each of the person from whom money was accepted were customers of the assessee and the transactions were considered as genuine by the lower authorities. According to him, if the loan transactions were disbelieved an addition ought have been made u/s.68 of the Act. When loan and repayment of such loan were believed, then the transactions were genuine and Sections 271D and 271E of the Act could not be applied. Thus, according to him, penalty levied under both the sections had to cancelled. 7. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In so far as question of limitation is concerned, what we find is that ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order had mentioned as under in relation to the operation of the debtors ledgers. The mode of transactions in the above ledger a/c. are in cash in excess of 720,000/-. In the absences of proper explanation. It is inferred that the above transactions are in the nature of loan creditor. The assessee received money exceeding 720,000/- as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or class of institutions, associations or bodies which the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette. Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit where the person from whom the loan or deposit is taken or accepted and that person by whom the loan or deposit is taken or accepted are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act . Section 269T No branch of a banking company or a co-operative bank and no other company or co-operative society and no firm or other person shall repay any loan or deposit made with it or any specified advance received by it otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who has made the loan or deposit or paid the specified advance, or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account (a) the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance together with the interest, if any, payable thereon, or (b) the aggregate amount of the loans or deposits held by such person with the branch of the banking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
