9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us : "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,60,000/- levied by the A.O u/s. 271D. The penalty levied by the A.O and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, contrary to provisions of law and not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal." 2. The AO observing that though the assessee during the year under consideration had purchased two plots at Haroda, District: Durg for Rs. 1,60,000/- each; and also repaid a cash loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- that was raised by him from his relative during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. In view of the facts stated above, the loan amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- received in cash from his nephew Shri Subhash Mohite, admitted for the purpose of the second property registered on 28.12.2011, is treated as received in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS thereby attracting the penal provisions of Section 271D. Hence, the loan amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- received in cash is levied as penalty u/s. 271D for the A.Y.2012-13. The demand has to be paid within 30 days of receipt of this order." 5. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC upheld his order. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that part of the said investment was sourced out of a cash loan raised by the assessee. At this stage, we may herein observe that except for the aforesaid explanation of the assessee as regards the source of investment in the aforesaid properties which had been rejected by the department, there is no independent material which would evidence that the assessee had raised any cash loan of Rs. 1.60 lac from the aforementioned person, viz. Shri. Subhash Mohite (supra) 8. Considering the aforesaid facts involved in the present case before us, we are of the considered view that now when the A.O had rejected the assessee's explanation that investment to the tune of Rs. 1.60 lac in the aforesaid properties was sourced out of the cash loan th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
