TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT] CIT(A) found on examination of the material on record that assessee entered into the genuine transactions and funds are transferred inter-se between assessee and the AOP which are recorded in the books of account. Since for renewal of the licence of liquor business, immediate cash is required for obtaining the licence from the Government, assessee had taken cash. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) found reasonable cause for failure to comply with the above provision. Therefore, penalty was rightly cancelled - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA.No.110/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. D.R. For The Assessee : Shri Vijay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 271D vide order dated 31st March, 2015 because assessee failed to explain the exigency for making cash payment. 4. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that assessment under section 143(3) was passed on 27th December, 2010 in which A.O. did not mention if assessee contravened the provisions of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on merit considering it to be the genuine transaction. The assessee relied upon the decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal in support of the contention that levy of penalty is unjustified. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the finding of fact recorded in the quantum appeal order dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a direction to frame the -assessment de novo after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Meanwhile penalty under section 271D was levied by order dated September 23, 1996, i.e., before the appeal of the assessee against the original assessment order was heard and allowed thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed on the basis of the original assessment order could not still survive when that assessment order had been set aside because the satisfact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
