TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the assessee against the order passed u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act] by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-23, Delhi,[The ld Adjudicating Authority ] levying penalty of ₹ 1,58,00,000/- was confirmed. 2. Assessee has raised several grounds of appeal submitting that there is no violation of provision u/s 269SS of the Act and the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act of ₹ 158,00,000/- upheld by the ld CIT(A) requires to be deleted. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That order dated 10.5.2018 under section 27ID of the Act was barred by limitation and therefore, deserved to be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,58,00,000/- u/s 27 ID of the Act. 2.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,58,00,000/- u/s 27ID of the Act as an enormous assumption that loan was received by appellant from Sh. Asharam Bapu through Sh. Sant Lal Aggarwal and thus the penalty affirmed on such assumpti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lal Aggarwal exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash. Such violation of the provision of section 269SS of the Act was reported by the ld AO to ld JCIT on 27.02.2018. Consequently, show cause notice for levy of penalty 271D was issued on 07.03.2018 and 20.03.2018. One more opportunity was given on 01.05.2018 to explain cash loan received of ₹ 75 lakhs and ₹ 83 lakhs from Asharam bapu through Sant lal Aggarwal. The assessee submitted his reply on 07.05.2018 stating that it has not entered into any transaction of loan in cash. The ld AO noted that during the course of assessment proceedings or during the course of penalty proceedings the assessee has not furnished any reasonable cause for deviation. The ld AO noted that during the course of search evidence in the form of entries of loan given was found from the premises from Asharam Bapu wherein, one of the disciples of Asharam Bapu Shri Devidas Thkamdas Chattani alias Dev Kumar has stated that the ledger names Bhagat pertain to the details of cash loan managed by Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal in that detail it is evident that on 01.07.2009 ₹ 75 lakhs and 29.03.2010 ₹ 83 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, held that the facts of loan have received in cash of ₹ 75 lakhs and ₹ 83 lakhs on 01.07.2009 and 23.03.2010 by the appellant is evident from the seized material. Further, the statement of a close aide of Asharam Bapu is also available. He therefore, held that such vital evidence cannot be ignored. Thus, in absence of anything submitted by the AR he held that he does not have any other option except to uphold the penalty. Thus, the order of the ld AO passed u/s 271D was confirmed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved with that order has preferred this appeal before us. 8. The ld AR submitted a paper book containing 184 pages before us. He submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act which was confirmed by the ld CIT(A) was contested before the coordinate bench in ITA No. 9890/Del/2019 and the same was decided on 16.06.2020, same is placed at page No. 155 to 170 of the paper book. He submitted that the coordinate bench has deleted the addition. He referred to paragraph No. 7 of that order wherein, in a table entry dated 01.07.2009 in the name of the assessee of ₹ 75 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13, emphatically stated that he does not know who Shri Devi Das Tikamdas Chattani is. Once again, answering to question No. 18, Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal stated that he does not know who is Shri Devi Das Tikamdas Chattani. Answering to question No. 19, Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal stated that he does not know Shri Devi Das Tikamdas Chattani and never handled ₹ 200 crores and no such transaction was done by him except selling rice to the Ashram. In the very same 14 statement, Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal accepted the transaction of M/s Index Securities and Research Pvt Ltd and the appellant company. 28. The Assessing Officer never confronted Shri Devi Das Tikamdas Chattani to Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal. If the statement of Shri Devi Das Tikamdas Chattani is to be believed, then on the same facts, statement of Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal cannot be ignored or brushed aside lightly. Merely because the statement of Shri Sant Lal goes in favour of the assessee, cannot be a reason to disbelieve the same. As mentioned elsewhere, there is no direct evidence brought on record which could suggest that some cash transactions took place between the assessee and the searched person. The observations made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
