Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAOvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 528/JP/2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 528/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2007-08 Narendra Singh Bana, cuke I.T.O. Vs. M/s Narendra Automobiles, Jhalawar. Opposite Krishi Upaj Mandi, Jhalra-Patan, Jhalawar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AARPB 6621 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Written Submissions jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/09/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 23/10/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21/02/2018 of ld. CIT(A), Kota arising from the penalty order passed U/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Kota has erred in imposing penalty U/s 271D of Rs. 5,20,000/- by treating violation of provisions of Section 269SS. The same may be kindly deleted.
2 ITA 528/JP/2018 Narendra Singh Bana Vs ITO 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee reserves his right to amend, add or withdraw the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.” 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that despite last opportunity given by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion, the assessee not to appear either in person or through authorized representative to argue the appeal. However, the authorized representative of the assessee has sent a letter dated 12/06/2019 and made a request that the appeal of the assessee may be decided on the basis of written submissions filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing and adjudication ex parte.
During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee had received loans in cash from various persons in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. The A.O. made the reference to the Additional CIT vide letter dated 10/05/2013 for levy of penalty U/s 271D of the Act in respect of loan taken in cash in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Despite repeated show cause notices, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee in the penalty proceedings U/s 271D of the Act. The Addll.CIT vide letter dated 07/10/2015 levied penalty of Rs. 5,20,000/- U/s 271D of the Act. The assessee challenged
3 ITA 528/JP/2018 Narendra Singh Bana Vs ITO the levy of penalty U/s 271D before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the loans were taken from six persons who were in the agricultural activities and therefore, the case falls in the exception under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules). The ld. CIT(A) did not find any substance in the explanation of the assessee and confirmed levy of penalty U/s 271D of the Act.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee filed written submissions and submitted that the penalty levied U/S 271D for Violation of section 269SS is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed due to the following reasons: - a. The Ld. Assessing Officer, Jhalawar made addition of Rs. 5,20,000/- under the head "Income from un-disclosed sources" (Section 68) and not under violation of provision of section 26955, the same is evident from the wordings of Ld. Assessing Officer (ITO), Jhalawar. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota also considered addition of Rs. 5,20,000/- as Income from Un- Disclosed sources and deleted the addition of Rs. 5,30,500/- on account of cash creditors of Rs. 5,30,500/- and treated them as explained which is evident from the wordings of Ld. CIT (A), Kota, in order dated 31/03/2015. "Considering the above, it is held that cash creditors were genuine therefore, cash creditors of Rs. 5,30,500/- are treated as explained." During the whole proceedings Rs. 5,20,000/- was never considered as acceptance of loan.
4 ITA 528/JP/2018 Narendra Singh Bana Vs ITO Instead it was agriculture income received by assessee from following persons against agriculture Land given on Batai (Munafa). The assessee has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 as well as the decision in the case of Diwan Enterprises Vs CIT 246 ITR 571.
On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that the addition made by the A.O. was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by accepting the loan in question as explained, therefore, the loan taken in cash is in contradiction of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act and consequently the provisions of Section 271D of the Act are attracted. The assessee has only made certain submissions without furnishing any evidence in support of the claim that the case of the assessee falls in the exception provided under Rule 6DD of the Rules. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the written submissions of the assessee as well as arguments advanced by the ld DR and carefully perused the impugned orders of the authorities below. The A.O. levied penalty U/s 271D of the Act in respect of loan shown by the assessee. The details of
5 ITA 528/JP/2018 Narendra Singh Bana Vs ITO loan creditors are given by the A.O. at page 2 of the assessment order, which is reproduced as under:
6 ITA 528/JP/2018 Narendra Singh Bana Vs ITO Thus, the assessee claimed loan from 34 loan creditors. Out of which loan from six creditors was explained as their source as agricultural income. In the quantum appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 6,02,094/- out of the total addition of Rs. 11,22,094/-, thus the balance amount of Rs. 5.20 lacs were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). However, it appears that since the addition was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 5.20 lacs out of the total addition of Rs. 11,22,094/- on account of unexplained cash credits, the assessee has taken this contention that the penalty levied against the loan of Rs. 5.20 lacs are same amount as addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the A.O. initiated proceedings only in respect of loan amounts which was accepted by the ld. CIT(A) and not in respect of the addition was confirmed. Thus,out of Rs. 6,02,094/-, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) accepting the explanation of the loan creditors, the penalty was initiated in respect of only Rs. 5.20 lacs. The confusion appears to have been arisen because of the identical amount which was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and penalty was initiated by the A.O. Therefore, this contention of the assessee cannot be accepted that the penalty was levied against the addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) rather the addition was sustained to the sum of Rs. 6,02,094/-. As regards the decision relied upon by the assessee when the penalty was not
7 ITA 528/JP/2018 Narendra Singh Bana Vs ITO levied in respect of amount which was assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee but it is in respect of amount which was accepted as loan taken by the assessee, therefore, these decisions relied upon by the assessee are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Except this contention, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to show that these loans taken by the assessee falls in any of the exception provided under Rule 6DD of the Rules. Accordingly, the penalty levied U/s 271D is sustained.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2019
Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23rd October, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Narendra Singh Bana, Jhalawar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O. Ward- Jhalawar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 528/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत