9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear (A.Y) 2014-15. 2. The sole ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,20,54,566/- u/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the findings of the A.O. and without considering the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. 2.1. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturer of Pharma Instruments. For the Assessment Year, 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of income on 01.04.2015 declaring total income under normal provisions of the Act of Rs. 58,38,324/-. The assessment was completed on 23.11.2016 by making addition on account of Late Payment of employee's contribution, Short Credit of receipt as per 26AS and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee company and transferred to the company account. None of the transaction is by way of cash and all the loans were availed only through banking channels. The ledgers of the loan account were submitted during the assessment proceedings. Therefore the Assessing Officer has not initiated any penalty proceedings for contravention of Section 269SS. Similarly in the case of Smt. Raja Rajeshwari Patnam , there was an account in the name of HPLC Solutions for which she was a proprietor and another account in the name of Raja Rajeshwari Patnam in the creditors, both were transferred to loan account by way of journal entries. The ledger of the loan account were submitted during the assessment proceedings, so the Assessing Officer has not ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot fall within the provisions for contravention of Section 269SS and therefore deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271D to the loan of Rs. 1,20,54,566/-. Thus, CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the revenue is in appeal before us raising the sole Ground of Appeal: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs.1,20,54,566/-under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the findings of AO and without considering the provisions of section 269SS of the ACT" 5. The ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the penalty order passed by the Additional CIT and pleaded to sustain the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
