TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an issue primarily to be considered by the Appellate Authority in the appeals preferred by the petitioner. As seen that the income earned by the petitioner during the relevant year, even going by the assessment made by the Department, is only approximately ₹ 20,00,000/-, of which it is conceded that he has paid around ₹ 5,00,000/- towards tax. It is beyond dispute that if the petitioner does not remit the 15% of the amount directed to be paid, the benefit of the interim order will not be available to him. At the same time, if he is compelled to pay such a huge amount, there is force in the contention that the same will have an adverse impact on his business. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to modify Ext.P7 ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner have also confirmed the said personal advances made to the petitioner. The assessment of the petitioner has been revised having regard to the said transactions as well. It is seen that after the revision of the assessment, petitioner was imposed penalty under Section 271D as also under Section 271E of the Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the orders imposing penalty on the petitioner under the said provisions. As per Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,38,09,645/- on the ground that the advances amounting to ₹ 2,38,09,645/- received by him from his parents during the relevant year was in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 269SS of the Act. As per Ext.P2 order, the petitioner was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 271D, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for failure referred to in Section 271D, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the provisions contained in Section 273B of the Act, vehemently contended that one of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal challenging Ext.P1 order is that there was reasonable cause for receiving the personal advances made to him by his parents, and if the said contention is accepted by the Appellate Authority, Ext.P1 order would be interfered with. According to the learned Senior Counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the petitioner has made out a reasonable cause falling within the scope of Section 273B of the Act for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 266SS in respect of the transactions involved in this case, as the same is an issue primarily to be considered by the Appellate Authority in the appeals preferred by the petitioner. But at the same time, it is seen that the income earned by the petitioner during the relevant year, even going by the assessment made by the Department, is only approximately ₹ 20,00,000/-, of which it is conceded that he has paid around ₹ 5,00,000/- towards tax. It is conceded by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has earned income on almost same lines for the years preceding and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
