TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , but the statement has not been found to be acceptable in view of the conflicting stance. The Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) that it is not established that the loans were obtained and repaid in cash. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact that the quantum proceedings had attained finality. In short, in view of the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the two authorities, there is nothing to substantiate the case of the Revenue that the assessee had obtained the loan in cash and the same was also repaid in cash. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the view that none of the questions, as proposed by the Revenue, could be termed as substantial questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or scrutiny by issuing notice under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act 1961 for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2014-15, respectively. Later, the penalty under Section 271D and 271E was levied in the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14. It appears that the Assessing Officer noticed from the materials seized from the residence of Shri Piyush Ghanshyam Modi that the assessee had obtained loan in cash from one Dilip C Sojitra and the said loan was repaid with interest in cash. The total amount repaid in cash was to the tune of ₹ 2,18,00,000/and the interest paid on the same was to the tune of ₹ 19,64,400/for the year under consideration. 4.4 While finalizing the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 4.9 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue is here before this Court with the present appeal. 5. The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court. 5(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in aw, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the penalty under Section 271E of the IT Act ignoring that penalty under Section 271E has been levied after considering material seized in the course of search under Section 132 of the IT Act on 18.02.2014 and based on statement recorded? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 292C is not available in the case of assessee. Further, the statement on which the Assessing Officer has based his findings has not found to be acceptable due to changing stand of the parties concern which were also third party. Further, the transactions were not found to be true as these were not deciphered by persons from whose possession these were recovered, DCIT, Circle1( 3), Surat Vs. Shri Gauranghai P Upadhyay / ITA No.'s 208 TO 216/SRT/2017 Page 9 of 10 . Therefore, the charge of the Assessing Officer that loans were rightly taken and repaid in cash has not been established. The Ld. CIT(A) has given this clear cut findings in quantum appeal in the case of assessee against which the appeal is also dismissed at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32(4A) as well as under Section 292C of the Act 1961 could be drawn. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact that the Assessing Officer had based his findings on the basis of a statement, but the statement has not been found to be acceptable in view of the conflicting stance. The Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) that it is not established that the loans were obtained and repaid in cash. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact that the quantum proceedings had attained finality. In short, in view of the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the two authorities, there is nothing to substantiate the case of the Revenue that the assessee had obtained the loan in cash and the same was also repaid in cash. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
