9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at each district headquarters. He was an income-tax payer of fifteen years standing. One Shri Vishnu Laxman Patil, who was purportedly one of his associates (advocate's clerk most likely) provided information to the income-tax authorities and consequently a raid and search operation was carried out at his residential and other premises by the Income-tax Department from August 21, 1995, to August 22, 1995, in which various incriminating documents, records were seized. His statement was recorded along with the statement of Shri Vishnu Laxman Patil and others during the course of search. On August 24, 1996, the Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax Circle at Jalgaon, passed a block assessment order for the block period from April 1, 1985, to August 21, 1995, under section 158BC read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Income-tax Act"), holding, inter alia, that the assessee had earned professional income at the rate of 12 per cent. of the amount of compensation disbursed in the cases conducted by him and assessed the taxable income to Rs. 2,00,20,520 (rupees two crores twenty thousand five hundred twenty only) by giving set off of Rs. 79,00,000 to the tax al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by obtaining loans otherwise than by account payee cheques or by demand drafts for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1995-96 and, therefore, was liable for penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act. However, it was noticed during the course of the appellate proceedings that in the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96 even deposits, which were below the ceiling limits of Rs. 20,000 were also taken into consideration. In view of the amendment effected to the provisions of section 269SS with effect from April 1, 1989, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the amount for these years which were below the ceiling limit of Rs. 20,000 for levying penalty under section 271D, after verification. In short, the order passed by the Assessing Officer, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, was confirmed for the accounting years 1990-91 to 1992-93 whereas for the subsequent three accounting years, i.e., 1993-94 to 1995-96 the appeals were partly allowed by deletion of amounts below Rs. 20,000 in each year for the purpose of levying penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act. This order was also carried in appeal by the assessee before the. Income-tax Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led as inward/outward diary), 15 (file containing various cheques and other loose papers indicating receipts, etc.), 21 (file containing loose documents), 22 (file containing loose papers/cheques/promissory notes, etc.), 42 (register showing money transactions), 44 (register showing money transactions), 45 (register showing money transactions), 46 (register showing money transactions) and 26 (receipt book) of the inventory attached to the panchanama dated August 22, 1995, drawn at the time of search and seizure operation. The said documents have been produced before us, as was demanded by the assessee. We have perused the same and we have noted from the statement given by the assessee, during the course of search operation to the raiding party, that he had unequivocally accepted the veracity of these documents along with their contents. There is an admission to the effect that these documents were collected during the course of search and seizure operation and the statement of Shri Vishnu Laxman Patil was also recorded during the same operation. On a perusal of these documents we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the authorities below have not committed any error in appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and loss account and to have a balance-sheet to determine income and the source thereof. Now coming to the scheme of section 269SS its constitutional validity has been upheld by the apex court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kumari A.B. Shanti [2002] 255 ITR 258. 5ections 269SS and 271D of the Income-tax Act read thus: "269SS. No person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984, take or accept from any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account-payee bank draft, if,-- (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a new provision debarring parties from taking or accepting from any other person any loan or deposit. Originally the ceiling amount of cash transaction was at Rs. 10,000 and the same was subsequently increased to Rs. 20,000 with effect from April 1, 1989. Section 27600 stated that if a party-person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine to the extent of equal amount of such loan or deposit. Subsequently section 271D, which is a penal clause in the Act, which provides for imposition of penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS was introduced with effect from April 1, 1989, omitting section 276DD from the said date. Thus, the original section 276DD was replaced by section 271D and the punishment of imprisonment was taken away. The failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS could only be visited with a penalty of fine equal to the amount of loan or deposit to be taken or accepted. The objections raised by the assessee against the penalty imposed under section 271D have been considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
