TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 to 1997-98 respectively u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. As the facts are more or less identical, and as all the appeals have been heard together, we dispose them of by means of a consolidated order. 2. The solitary ground taken by the Revenue is regarding deletion of penalties levied u/s.271D and 271E as detailed below:- Sr. No. Asstt. Year. Penalty levied Section. 1. 1995-96 67,62,971/- 271D 2. 1996-97 67,40,050/- 271D 3. 1997-98 89,22,700/- 271D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Settlement application filed by the assessee, as the assessee failed to fulfill the requirement of provisions contained u/s. 245D(2D) with a direction to the A.O. to dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)(3) and (4) of section 245HA of the Act. In view of the Settlement Commission s order, block assessment u/s. 158BC of the Income Tax Act was completed on 31-12-2007. 4. During the course of block assessment proceedings, on going through the Special Audit Report u/s. 142(2A), it was observed by Assessing Officer (A.O.) that the assessee had accepted loan in excess of ₹ 10,000/- and he concluded that assessee has violated provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act. It was also alleged that assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee were not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He held that penalty proceedings u/s. 271D/271E are independent of the block proceedings. These penalties are not related to income or undisclosed income. These are leviable for the violations as per Sec. 269SS or 269T of the Act and can be initiated/levied independent of assessment or block assessment proceedings. He further held that till the time deposits are not transferred to the sales account, the nature of deposits are in the nature of deposits only and such deposits fall under the ambit of 269SS/269T. He further held that the facts of the assessee s case are different from those relied upon by it and therefore the ratio of those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock assessment proceedings. He accordingly urged that the order of the A.O. levying the penalty be upheld. The Ld. A.R. on the other hand urged that in the block assessment made, the booking advance as per No.2 book has already been added as undisclosed income. According to the assessee, once the booking advance had been assessed as undisclosed income by invoking the provisions of Sec. 68, the same cannot be considered as deposit/loan in violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- 1) Girish Mishra vs. ACIT (2004) 91 TTJ (All) 643 2) CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 295 (Del) 3) Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR (Del) 571 4) DCIT vs. G S Entertainment (2007) 109 TTJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
