TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of ₹ 1. 50 lakh both dated 1. 6. 2006 in the name of Khairun Begum and Narmada Devi respectively. As regards, the other cheques payments, the assessee produced the relevant bank accounts. We find that there is nothing on record to show that any cash payments were actually made by any of the payers. The assessee has also filed the sale deeds in which the names of the sellers have been reflected. These transactions relate to before incorporation of the assessee company therefore the assessee company is not liable based on the factual position narrated above. There does not seem to be any reason for invoking the provisions of section 269SS either on the fact of the mode of such conveyance or on the legality of holding the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see also purchased agricultural land at Sanganer, Jaipur at a consideration of ₹ 27,50,000/- and also took unsecured loan from Swastik Enterpirises amounting to ₹ 3,00,000/- other than by account payee cheque and paid to the seller of the land. Assessee purchased a piece of agricultural land for ₹ 29,00,000/- at Jaipur Rajasthan from two individuals. It was observed by the AO that the payment for the entire purchase of land was facilitated by a loan creditor, Viz, M/s Swastik Enterprises for ₹ 3,00,000/- paid directly to the said two sellers and a further sun of ₹ 26,00,000/- paid directly to the said two sellers and a further sum of ₹ 26,00,000/- paid again directly by the promoter directors and their re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 276231 4,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 4. Narmada Devi 276229 2,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 5. Narmada Devi 276228 4,50,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 6. Narmada Devi 26227 1,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 The above amounts come to a total of ₹ 26 lakhs. As regards the rest of the ₹ 3 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, he deleted the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. 5. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has defended the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that stand taken by the ld DR for the Revenue are not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), that during the appellate proceedings, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
