9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of caps, handles, packing materials, PET jars, bottles etc. under the name and style of her proprietary concern M/s. Krishna Industries. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by her on 21.12.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 3,20,860/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had taken fresh unsecured loans during the year under consideration from her daughter Smt. Monika Sitani and her son-in-law Shri Ajay Kumar Jain amounting to Rs. 95,000/- and Rs. 2,66,000/- otherwise than by account payee cheques or account payee Bank Drafts. Since the said loans were taken by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of her case were not found acceptable by him, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to confirm the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 4.1.6 of his impugned order:- "4.1.6. I agree with the observation of the Ld. JCIT that even though the amounts have been received on Sunday but in view of the other facts mentioned by the JCIT that the amounts were once received were not immediately utilised by the appellant and were not squared off till the end of the year, did not reflect any element of urgency on the basis of business exigencies and denied him the discretion given to the authority levying penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the findings given by the JCIT, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. D.R. has relied on the orders of the authorities below in support of the revenue's case that imposition of penalty under section 271D is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has contended that the provisions of section 269SS are not strictly applicable to the transactions between the relatives and the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Manisha Prakash Amin -vs.- JCIT vide its order dated 24.05.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
