TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of section 271D and 271E cannot be invoked. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to examine accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.1261 to 1263/H/2019 And ITA No.196/H/2020 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2020 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sri H. Srinivasulu For the Revenue : Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:- All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No.10199, 10200 10201/16-17/Addl.CIT, Rg.16/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, dated 31/05/2019 passed U/s. 271D 271E r.w.s. 250(6) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied of ₹ 1,01,24,500/- U/s. 271D of the Act. (4) The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have seen that the AO did not record the satisfaction note at the time of completion of assessment. (5) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal for the AY 2011-12 in ITA No.196/H/2020: (1) The appellant objects to the appellate order dated 31st May 2019 passed by the CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad which is opposed to law and contrary to facts and evidence on record. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that provisions of section 271E of Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany engaged in the business of Real Estate. The assessee did not file its return of income for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Therefore, notice U/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 2/8/2013 for all the three AYs. In response the assessee filed its e-return of income on 4/2/2014 for all the three AYs and intimated the Revenue vide letter dated 7/3/2014 wherein the copies of all the three e-returns were enclosed. During the course of assessment proceedings it was revealed that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 as it had received loans by way of cash in excess of the prescribed limit on various occasions aggregating to ₹ 4,00,000/-, ₹ 18,03,000/-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce all the entities from whom cash was received and repaid in cash were associate concerns the funds belonged to the common ownership and therefore, they cannot be differentiated. The Ld. AR further argued stating that the entire funds received are repaid in cash were withdrawn from the bank accounts of the respective entities and therefore, the genuineness of the fund cannot be doubted. Thereafter, the Ld. AR relied in the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of CIT vs. Shree Ambica Flour Mills Corporation reported in [2008] 6 DTR 169 (Guj.), the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd reported in [2006] 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) and pleaded for deleting the penalty imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bank withdrawals and recorded in the assesse s books of accounts within a reasonable span of time from the date of cash withdrawals from the respective bank accounts and further if all the entities are pertaining to sister concerns (arising out of the same group of ownership), then the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act will not be applicable and accordingly the penal provisions of section 271D and 271E cannot be invoked. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to examine whether all the concerned entities are sister concerns and whether the cash received and repaid by the assessee are arising out of the cash withdrawals from bank account of the respective entities and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
