AMRUTAPALLI KOTESWARA RAO,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2123/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 February 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the penal nature of the demand and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish reasons for accepting the loan in cash.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for accepting loans in cash. The assessee requested an opportunity to submit reasons for accepting the loan by cash.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D is leviable for accepting loans in cash, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the reasons for such acceptance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 21/01/2020Pronounced: 20/02/2020

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad in appal No.127/CIT(A)-7/2015-16, dated 01/09/2017 passed U/s. 271D r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12 of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

1.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Addl. CIT in levying penalty U/s. 271D of the Act of Rs. 6,10,000/-.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanations submitted and held that penalty is not leviable.

4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee in order to submit the reasons for accepting loan by way of cash which may result in deletion of the penalty levied U/s. 269SS and 271D of the Act. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh consideration. The Ld. DR strongly objected to the submissions of the Ld. AR.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. Though we do not find much merit in the submission of the ld. AR as he has not furnished any convincing reasons before us as to why the provisions of section 271D of the Act would not be attracted, considering the plight of the assessee and the penal nature of the demand, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 20TH February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →