TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been doubted. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.666/Rjt/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2019 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri M.J. Ranpura, AR For the Respondent : Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT-DR ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-III/0060/13-14 dated 16/09/2014 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 26/03/2013 and penalty order passed u/s.271D of the Act dated 01/05/2013 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Vanitaben M. Ramolia 1,75,000/- Maternal Aunty 7. Jyotsnaben G. Akbari 1,90,000/- Wife s Paternal Uncle Total 14,80,000/- 3.1 In view of the above, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act, vide show cause notice dated 16/04/2013. The assessee in compliance to such notice failed to submit any reply before the AO. Therefore, the AO held that the unsecured cash loan received by the assessee is in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly the AO levied the penalty of ₹ 14,80,000/- under the provision of section 271D of the Act. 3.2. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the he has taken cash from his close relatives for the purpose of purchasing the residential property which were duly recorded in book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ans, as discussed supra. The argument of the appellant that the loans in cash are taken to purchase a residential property do not constitute reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the IT Act, 1961. Also failed to place any documentary evidence on record to substantiate the argument that the income of the persons, who have given cash loans is from agriculture. The appellant, engaged in the business of civil construction, a regular tax payer cannot be ignorant of these penal provisions, which are intended to counter the tax evasion. Having regard to the facts of the case and the written submission given by the appellant, I am of the view that the case of the appellant is covered squarely by the provisions of section 271D of the IT act, 1961 for contravention of provisions in section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, I uphold the penalty levied by the assessing officer at ₹ 14,80,000/- u/s.271D of the IT Act, 1961. This ground of appeal is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 66 and submitted that there is no doub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deposits, the Finance Act has inserted a new s. 269SS in the IT Act debarring person from taking to accepting, after 30th June, 1984 from any other persons any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit is ₹ 10000 or more. This prohibition will also apply in cases where on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit is ₹ 10000 or more. This prohibition will also apply in cases where on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), and the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid is ₹ 10,000 or more. The prohibition will also apply in cases where the amount of such loan or deposit, together with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date of which such loan or deposit is proposed to be taken is ₹ 10,000 or more. 6.2 From the above we note that the provision of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
