ABHAL KACHRULAL ABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 389/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 February 2019AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271D for the violation of Section 269SS. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, the authorities' view was considered reasonable.

What were the facts?

The assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs in cash, violating Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. A penalty under Section 271D was imposed, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) after the matter was remitted back by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271D for accepting cash loans in violation of Section 269SS is justified.

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, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad on 29-12-2015 confirming penalty of Rs.15.00 lac imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that action u/s.132 of the Act was taken at Rudranee group of Aurangabad, which

2 ITA No. 389/PUN/2016 Abhal Kachrulal Abad

transpired that the assessee had taken loan of Rs.15 lakhs from

Mr. Kachrulal Nathmal Mutha in cash, against which post

dated cheques were issued. Penalty of equal amount of Rs.15

lakh was imposed u/s.271D for violation of the provisions of

section 269SS of the Act. When the matter came up for

consideration before the Tribunal in the first round, it set-aside

the penalty order and remitted the matter to the file of AO for

deciding it afresh. In the de novo proceedings, the AO has

again imposed penalty of Rs.15 lakh, which has been upheld

by the impugned order.

3.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant

material on record. The case was originally fixed for hearing

on 30-01-2018 and the notice was sent. None appeared on

behalf of the assessee. The matter was adjourned to

10-04-2018. On such date, it transpired that the assessee was

no more alive. The ld. DR was directed to gather necessary

information regarding legal heirs of the deceased assessee and

send fresh notice on the legal heirs. The case was adjourned to

21-06-2018. Once again the appeal was fixed for hearing on

17-09-2018. When there was no appearance from the side of

the assessee again, the matter was adjourned to 28-11-2018

3 ITA No. 389/PUN/2016 Abhal Kachrulal Abad

and the Department was directed to serve the notice on the

legal heirs. On the next date of hearing, again, there was no

appearance from the side of the assessee and the matter was

adjourned for today and again the position remains the same

despite the service of notice.

4.

We have gone through the relevant facts. Penalty has

been imposed for violation of provisions of section 269SS of

the Act, which ex facie, appears to be correct. In the absence

of any explanation forthcoming from the side of the assessee,

we are convinced that the authorities below have taken a

reasonable view in the given facts in imposing and confirming

the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the

same.

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th February, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 07th February, 2019 सतीश

4 ITA No. 389/PUN/2016 Abhal Kachrulal Abad

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Aurangabad िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // 6.

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 06-02-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 06-02-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →