TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective of the recipient of the loan. Thus, the innocence pleaded on account of ignorance of law of Directors who are claimed to be non-resident is insignificant. There is no question of any benefit to the assessee company on the basis of claim of bona fides of the Directors. The provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act imposed statutory liability and cannot be said to held to be mere technical violation in case of companies. Appeal dismissed. - Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member And Sh.Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM : These two appeals have been filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69T, whereas the Assessing Officer on scrutiny of accounts found that the assessee company has taken loan in cash on different dates repaid the same in cash in contravention of section 269SS 269T of the Act. 4. On the basis of above facts, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D 271E of the Act. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the money was received from director Smt. Sofia Praveen Khan as share application money for allotment of share capital, but the Board rejected the allotment of share and the money so received was repaid to her in cash. The Assessing Officer observed that it was neither a loan nor share application money, but was a temporary deposits with the company, as no interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper book page 21 22 before us. Therefore, no penalty is leviable against the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee clearly violated the provisions of section 269SS and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee also could not adduce any evidence before us to support its stand that the amount so received from Sofia Praveen Khan was repaid by way of cheques or the amounts received from Sofia Praveen Khan was mentioned twice by the AO. The cash book submitted was not found authentic, as it was an extract typed on A-4 size paper as mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. There is also no plausible explanation with respect to the amount received from M/s. Softech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Tax Auditor has also not reported true facts in respective columns of tax audit report as mentioned above. In presence of all these facts, we do not find any justification to interfere with the conclusions of the ld. Authorities below that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yam Publications Ltd. 285 ITR 221 (Mad), (2) CIT V. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P H) (3) CIT V. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad) (4) CIT V. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj) (5) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF), 263 ITR 487 (Gauhati) and find that the two Supreme Court judgments relied by the assessee have not been considered. Hence, the order is being recalled. 7. Accordingly, the matter was heard and Ld. AR initially stressed on the facts that since the order dated 03.12.2021 has mentioned that the initial order dated 10.01.2017 stand recalled therefore, the appeal has to be heard on merits however, we are of the view that the Miscellaneous Application was filed for limited purpose pointing out non-consideration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n para 7 of the order dated 10.01.2017 and reproduced above. The bench has duly appreciated the conduct of assessee as with regard to change of stand and how the assessee company was unable to establish before the Tax Authorities on the basis of any evidence that the disputed loans received in cash was even a genuine loan transaction. 10. The Bench is of considered opinion that violation was of Section 269SS of the Act which deals with the modes of accepting certain loans deposits and specified sums and Section 269T of the Act which deals with the modes of repayment of certain loans for deposits are violation which are not to be examined from the perspective the person who has given the loan or to whom the loan was returned but from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
