TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh a journal entry. The above contention of the assessee is not acceptable by any Court of Law, claiming to have wrong entry has been made in a document, which was duly signed by both the vendor and purchaser and registered by the Sub- Registrar of the State Revenue Department in the absence of any material evidence. The assessee should have approached the Appellate Authority of the Tamil Nadu State Revenue Department for any modification/addition/deletion, etc., which was not done in this case - we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act and thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the sale consideration of the immovable property by cash. Therefore, by following various decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹.1,60,00,000/- under section 271D of the Act dated 30.09.2019 for accepting the sale consideration of immovable property otherwise by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft without reasonable cause and violating the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the consideration clause of the deed of sale had wrongly entered the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed of sale had wrongly entered the transaction in mode of cash . The written submissions of the ld. DR are reproduced as under: In the present case the assessee has admitted in the sale deed before SRO admitting receipt of cash. Moreover as observed by CIT(A) in the last para of the order the details and evidences in support of his claim were not submitted. Only a vague claim was made that loan was outstanding in some group company. The confirmation filed by the lender also does not mention the creditors name specifically. Even before ITAT assessee has submitted only a balance sheet of M/s. Thirupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd., 2013- 14 as on 31.03.2014. He has not submitted the relevant balance sheets that as on 31.03.2016 and 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... patti Srinivasa Prasad in Hon ble Madras High Court hearing CS No. 931 of 2015 against the Appellant, his brother Mr.Subash Chandra Bose and M/s.Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd. (in which both were Directors) for recovery of the loan. 3. Further, as per the Decree dated 08.01.2016 it was directed that the Appellant and the group company M/s.Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd. was to pay Rs. 2 crores on or before 07.02.2016, Rs. 2 crores on or before 07.03.2016, Rs. 2.10 crores on or before 07.04.2016 and Rs. 1.10 crores on or before 01.05.2016. This proves beyond doubt that the liability as shown in the financials of the group company M/s. Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt Ltd. for the FY 2013-14 continued to be in exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not notice the mention of 1.60 crores paid in cash and proceeded to register the sale deed. 6. Further, the origin of the loan which was now adjusted as part consideration was taken through bank as required y Sec.26988 and this was proved by the Bank statements, Bank confirmation letter and the confirmation letters of Mr.Chukkapalli Venu and Mr.Chukkapalli Srinivasa Prasad, the copies of which were submitted to Honourable Bench. 7 Under the above said facts and circumstances, the Appellant submits that the Written submission dated 30.01.2024 by the Ld.Sr. AR is irrational and not tenable and it is very evident that the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Annamallais Bus Transports Pvt. Ltd. is clearly ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71D of the Act. 6.4 We have carefully perused the copy of the registered document No. 2767/2016 filed by the assessee, wherein, all the pages were duly signed by both the vendor and purchaser and in page 3/17; the following details of receipt of consideration are mentioned: a. ₹.1,60,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty lakhs only) paid by way of cash on 26.04.2016. b. ₹.1,46,99,384/- (Rupees one crore forty six lakhs ninety nine thousand three hundred and eighty four only) loan closure amount by cheque bearing No. 848089 dated 21.04.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kodambakkam branch, Chennai. c. ₹.3,00,616/- (Rupees three lakhs six hundred and sixteen only) paid by means of cheque bearing No. 000123 dated 27.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
