TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer and the CIT(A). Thus, this is not a case of non exercise of discretion under Section 273B of the Act as alleged by the appellant. From the reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find that in respect of the loans on which penalty has been confirmed, the appellant assessee has not made out and / or submitted any reasonable cause for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to set aside the penalty in such cases. The case laws of the Apex Court and coordinate bench of this Court relied upon by Mr. Jha on behalf of the appellant, is binding upon us and there can be no quarrel with the proposition set out therein. However, the same cannot be considered in vacuum. It necessarily has to be in the context of the facts arising i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was an absence of reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B? 3. During the course of search and seizure action, it was found that the appellant has received loans in cash in breach of Section 269SS of the Act which invites penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Thus, at the time of passing of the assessment order, the penalty proceedings were initiated for the previous years relevant to the three assessment years. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the appellant to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 271D of the Act. The appellant has filed his explanation to the show cause notice. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here reasonable cause was likely the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. In cases where no reasonable cause was shown by the assessee, the impugned order upheld the order of the Tribunal to the extent of cash loans were received in excess of ₹ 20,000/. 6. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not sustainable because on the same set of facts, it has deleted penalty in respect of the some parties while upheld penalty in respect of the other parties. Besides, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Asst. Director of Inspection Vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, 122 Taxman 574, the decision of this Court in Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed, the appellant assessee has not made out and / or submitted any reasonable cause for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to set aside the penalty in such cases. The case laws of the Apex Court and coordinate bench of this Court relied upon by Mr. Jha on behalf of the appellant, is binding upon us and there can be no quarrel with the proposition set out therein. However, the same cannot be considered in vacuum. It necessarily has to be in the context of the facts arising in the case. In this case, we find that the appellant assessee has not made out any case for reasonable cause in respect of cases where the impugned order has not disturbed the finding of the lower authorities. 8. So far as the grievance that the grounds menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
