I.T.O. WARD 1, AMARAVATI vs. SHRI SHAILENDRAKUMAR GOVERDHANDAS AGRAWAL, PARATWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/NAG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 July 2018AY 2011-1211 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that transactions between a partner and a partnership firm are not loans or deposits within the meaning of Sections 269SS and 269T. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, thus invoking the benefit of Section 273B.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E. The penalties were imposed for accepting and repaying loans in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000, violating Sections 269SS and 269T. The assessee argued that transactions with a partnership firm are not loans as the firm and partners are not separate legal entities.

What were the issues?

Whether cash transactions between a partner and a partnership firm constitute loans/deposits attracting penalties under Sections 271D and 271E. Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance under Section 273B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 269T,Section 271D,Section 271E,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

82 IN THE [NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBLNAL NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR BEFQRE SHRL SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRIRAMLAL NEGL JDCIAL MEMBER [TANps292 & 293NNag/2015 (Assessment Year 20Ll2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-] , Amravati Appellant vIs Shri Shailendrakumar Govardhandas Agrawal Khaparde Plot. Paratwada, Dist, Amravati, Maharashlra-444 805 Respundent PAN; AASPA 7183 L Assessee by Shri Prakash Nunwaani Revente by Shri Gitesh Kumar Date of 'Hearing 11.05.2018 Date of' (rder (3.07,208 ORDER SHAMIM YAHYAAM These are appeals by the Revenue direcled againsl Lhe respective urders +f the Id, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) _ I, Nagpur dated 31.08.2015 . pertaining lo the assessinenl year 201]-42. wherein penally Dis 27D und 271F: hare hen dclelcd 2 The grounds of appea] of ITA No.292 Nag /201S read as under: 1 Whether on the facts and circumstanccs 0l thc casc and Ini' the learncd CIT(Appeal)-I 's decision (or deleting the levied penulty by Jwint Commissicner ol Income Tax Amravati Range. Amravati of' Rs.1.l6.QU.UUUi- (l the Act is nUL acceptable: 3 The grounds of appcal of ITA No.293/Nag /2015 read as undcr: -42 ITA Nos. 292 & 293Nag J10 Shri Shuilencbrakumar Govardhandus Agrawvt: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law the learned CIT(Appeal)-! s decision for deleting the levied penally by Joint Commissioner af' Ine(une 'TIax Amravali Range. Amravali &l Rs.23.45.0OU/- ol the Act is not icccptuble Briel facts ofthe case are aS under: On perusal of recards. the Assessing Officer found that the assessec had taken Or nccepted loans in cash Irom the (inn on various dates during the relevanl financial year 2010-H_ The amount of the cash Iqan taken by the assessee in each case exceeds Rs.2().)() - #hich is accepted otherwise than an account payee cheque: The Assessing Oflicer also noied thal the assessee has &lsa repaid given loan to the firin in cash. The Assessing Officer thereforc. issued a show-cause notice dtd.03.04.2014 asking the Z5x0550 4S l/} Ihy" the penallv Ly 271D27IE should not bc levied fcpr having ravened to the provisions 0f section 269SS/269T ofthe Act; The Itf. Counsel ol' the assessee in his written submission tiled before Gel Assessing Otticer has submitted thai the assessee is a partner in the firm M/ GM: Arcade. Paralwada and during the relevant financial year deposited Rs.23,45,000/- in cash fron {imnc tu time and effected withdrawals of Rs.},16,30,0100}- in cash from the - fim Mls (G.M. Arcade where the assessee is Ore of the partner. The assessee submitted copies of' deed of partnership and capital account of' the assessee with the; said tin belore the Assessing Oflicer: The Id Counsel of the assessee contended that the balance receivable from the firm Mls G.M. Arcade is nol & loan but it was balance in the capital accoum receivable from the said firm which according to the assessee was in the nature of' capilal investment with the firm The assessee also contended before the Assessing Officcr that a5 per section 4 of the Indian Parinership Act 1932, the firm is not a legal IT4 Nts 292 & 29}:Ne Ziis Shri Silendfrukuma Govuralhancexs Agromaxt entity but it is only a collective or compendious nane Ior aIl the partners so if a %uit Ig enforce & right arising from a contract is to be instituted by a firin #gainsl i third parly . Thus, the assessee pleaded that partnership firm is not & separate legal entity than its partners and firm and partners are thc same. The assessee Ihus argued Ahal any payInem accepted Cr paid by the partner to the finn Or by the |irnt Io [he parinlcr IX Mc)l 2 transaction from one person to another and ft amounts payment to self; Therefore- according t 1he asscsscc any dcposit or receipf nf eash (rom dr &IY' pa} mCnl (l eaxh [x firn cannol be lermed a Ioan by the parner Iv Ihc firin 05 Ulie SunnnC being Ichl transfer from one person to aother: Therefore. thc assessee contended thal there is no violation of provisions of seciion 26955 E 269T 0]" [hc: Act in) this Lxisc iliILL consequently penalty Uls 271D & 271E are not lcviable. The assessee has also rlied On- the decision of' CIT Vs V. Shivakumar (Mad FIC} and Shrepak Enterprises 'Vs, DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), The Assessing Officer however; declined to agree with the contentions pul forh the assessee, The Assess ing Officer in Ihis regard hns relerreu Ii) Ilie: relc"t :4W/ provisions of the law as stipulated uis 2695S 0fthe Acl Ihich are reproduced on pL no. 3 of the penalty order: The section 269SS stipulates lhat no person shall Lake or ncccpt from any Other person any loan or depasit Olherwise thun hi &n #Ce{F Jtee ci'Y1e' tr draft if the amcunt of such loan or deposit OI the aggregate aMOunl of' such loan or deposit i8 rupees twenty thousand or more_ Ilowever; i( thc CIse of" thc E455LSS11 i5 covered by any Of the exceptions to lhe prOvE iso &)[ thc section 26955. Lht' salidl pror isics; shall not be applicable in that case. The Assessing Officer has als0 relerred l0 the: definition of person 85 stipulated Ws 2(31) of lhe I.T. Aci. 196 ] antl discarded Ihe: ITA Nos. 292 & 29MNag,20 Jhri Shailendratumar Guvardlhanda; Agrawt version of the assessee lhal the firm and the parlner is the sane person Thus, after haxing analyzed lhe relevant provisions of Ihe law, the Assessing Officer found that lhe case of the assessee i5 not cavered by the exceptions provided in section 2698S and also Iha there is no dispute #s regars i0 the peymenl made by lhe assessec cxceeding rupees m#enly thousand in eaeh case atherwise than by an account payee cheque. therefore, the asscssee has rendered himself liable t penalty Wls 271D of the Act and accordingly: levied the penalty ot Rs.El6.OO.OO - far having contravened the provisions 0F section 269SS olthe Acl On similar reasoning penalty u/s. 271E was levied for the violation of protision 0/ section 269T of the Act; 7 Against the above order: the assessee appealed befare the Id, Commissioner of &li# Trome Tax ( Appcals) The Id. €ommissionlr of Incame Tax (Appeals) notcd the submissions of the assessee wd held a8 under: The AR of Ihe appellant has enclosed a copy of the account of the appellant with the lirmn Mx Ci.M. Arcade wherein the appellant is one f the partners As per Ihis aceounl the Opening capital as 0n 0}.04.2010 is shown at Rs.90,16,359/- as credil balance. On perusal of the account, it is seen that the appellant has accepted cash deposits %f Rs.L,16,30.000/- and made deposits during the, period 25.04.2010 to 20.013.2011, Similarly, the appellant has also made the deposits to the: Lult' 01 Rs.23.45.0OO/- in the month of March-2O ]1 AlI the deposits accepted and puid .wre' in cash exceeding Rs.ZO.OOM- in each case. The contention of the AR is that {he various deposits received Irom the partncrship tirm are withdrawal of capital and profit for the year under appeal Thcrefore, according to the AR the sume are not in the nature af loans/advances received by the appellant from the lirm. Thus. thc AR contended thal the transactions between the appellant and the firin &S SUeh arc in Ihe nalure of contribution of' capital and withdrawal thereof, therctore, lhe lransactions arc Qutside the ambit of section 2695S of the Act; The AR furlher reiterated that a5 per section 4 of the partnership Act; 1932, the {irm is not a Legal entity but is only 4 collective Or compendious name of all the partters. Therefare. the transactions between the firm and partners canmot be ensidcrcd in the nature of loan/advances within the meaning of section 269S8 of 43 {Am4. JV2 t _W} 1t 20X6 Smri Shuiteuakcak unew" &cuetrtlh{nckus Agrarnest the Act The appellant has further argued that in Zhe pasl assessment year also Lhe transactiong between Ihe appellant ad the firm being capila] contribution &nd withdrawals have never bccn considered as loar or depasit hy thc dcparnert Besides, the A conlended that the appellant as undtr Ihc bcmnalide helicd' thal the transactions between the firin and the partner are not covered by' seelion 269SS of the Act; Therefore. such bona-lide belief coupled wilh the facl that the transactions are genuine, according to he AR constitule 0 reasonable cause within & meaning of seclion 273B of the Act 4 On similar reasaning the Id. Commissioner Dl Income Tax (Appeals} ulst) &lledlerl the penalty Ws. 2TIE for violation of' section 269T, In this regard the Id. Cummnissioner ol Income Tax (Appeals) referred t0 the follow ing casc laws referred h} the assessec: 1; CIT vs. Sivakumar, reported al 354 TIR 9 (Mad); 2 CITvs_ Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema} reporled al 304 [TR [72: 3 Shri Paramjit 8. Bedi in ITA No. 656/Nag/1997 (ITAT-Nag): and 4_ CIT vs_ Samora Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2012) 70 DTR ( Jel) 453 , 10 Against the above ordcr: the Revenue is in appeal before US. We havc heard bolh the counsel and perused thc records, Chc: learned 'departincntal representalive relicd upon the (ders of Ihe' assessing (ficer. Per ( ra learned counsel of the assessee subinitted that in this case lhe transaction is betwccn partner ad firm He submitted that there are sevcral case laws in ihich iL has been Ilel that suchl transaction cunnot be brought under lhe ambit ol secticn 26958 an 26U) [.

2.

Act_ The submission of the learned counsel 0l 1he assessee is summarized as under: A) The assessee is partner in Ihe lirm Ms G,M Arcieh, Asslsset h1els iithdrawn mney O1t of opening capital in tirli and ((uurcls share t" proxlil. Assessee has alsq conlributed capilal in the Firm "he alorcsaid (tansleticmis #rc" made in cash The details of transactions are as pcr capilal account wherein sum ofRs.116.30 lacs are withdrawn Qul of capital and Rs.23.45 lacs are conlributed as capital (Page [5 & 16} B) The Iransactions belieen lhe tirin and parlners atc in respeel I ewpilal withdrawn and contributed. The Tirin i5 nol a legal enlity hut it is only il collective or compendious name of all parlners; The Lransactions bel:ecn tirm and partners are not in the nature of loans/advances 15 envisaged in seclicn 44 ITA Nos, 292 & 293/Nag /20} Shri Shcifendrekunnm" Gorardhunda: Agronrt 269SS269T" oi I1. Act 196] fur #4 hich penally Ws 271 D and 271 L Ciln bt: levicd, Reliance Q: Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench Kolkata order in Ihe case of Smt Anita Hati in ITA No.921/Kol/2015 vide order dated 20/09/201 7. P e ii) Flon'hfe IIA T order. Kolkala 'SMC" Bench; Kolkata Order in the case of Agurwul Kcjriwal & Co. in ITA No.897/K0l/2013 vide order dated 02/09/2014. iii) (2013)3S4TR9 (Mad,) CIT vs, V. Sivakumar (P-1l7-21) (19,20,21) iii) (2008) 304 ITR 0172 (Raj ) CTT vs. [ khpat Filin Exchange (Cineina) (P-301-32)0301 iv) Wis heforc CI(A) (P-1-14) C) The bonafide belief that the transactions between the firm and partners are the not transactions in the nature of Ioan and advances coupled with genuineness of transaclions Ioutld constitute reasonable cause in lerms of Section 273B of [T, Act 1961, Keliance Qu: Hon'ble Bombay High Courl at Nagpur order in ITA No.23/2001 in the case of Paramjeet Singh Bedi. (P-22-25) (24) ji) Hon'ble [7 A T order in TTA No.656/Nag/1997 in the case of Shri Paramjit S, Bedi vide order taled [0/04/2001, (P- 26 29) (29} iw) (Z008) 304 ITR 0172 (Raj ) CIT vs Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (P-30-32) (30) +i) (2010191315 ITR 0163 (P&H) C[? Sunil Kumar (ocl (P-33 391(33) 1} (2005) 97 77} (928 (Pune) Muslim Urban Co-operativc Credit Society Itd, Vs, JCIT (P-4D-47) (40) vi) (2008) 303 ITR 0099 (Mad:) CIT vs. Lukshmi Trust Co. (P-45-47) (45) vii) (2010) 41 DTR 0305 (Hyd. (Trib ) (itizen (0-Qperalive Society Ltd, vs. Addl; CIT (P-48 83) viii) (2001) 248 ITR 0S25 (Bom:) CIT vs, Eelachi Agencies (P-34-85) D) The perusal of Iedger account would show that the assessee had ipening: capital o1' Rs.941.16.359/- available #ith the partnership firm: The withdrawval &f" cfipilul cunnol bc considered 05 Ioan obtained from the firm to be visited with levyof penally 1/s271D of IT. Act 1961_ E) The decision relied upon by A.O. in the order imposing penalty is in relation Lo transactions belween shareholders and company and is inapplicable to the liets in CSc of assessee. 95 ITA K" J924' _9J Tk WIS SShrf Sic ifenatrctku futm" (ioetmcdixnikts AIprenol F} Lt is settled proposition of law thal levy of penally is not mandaitry. Observation of A.O. that levy of penalty is mandatory is cOntrary t0 the judicial settled principle of law. Reliance on: i} (1972) 83 ITR 0026 (SC} Hindustan Steel Ltd, vs_ Statc of Orissa (P- 86-91) G) Hon'ble CIT(A) has rightly deleted thc penalty levied Ws 271D and Ws 271E of [T. Act [96] 12_ We have carefully considered the subinission and perused the reords. We Iinel thal assessee in this case is & partner in the firm: The assessee has withdrawn money (UU of his balances in the firm which arise out of opening capital and his share of profil, The assessee has #lso conlributed capilal in Ilc firm The alorcsaid Iransueticons are mnad' in cash. These transactions havc bccn treated b; the assessing olficer lo be Iransaclion in Ihe nature ot loanfadvances under scction 2698S and 2691 o/ 1he Acl Iespeelirely Icor which penally under section 271D and 27IE ol the Act respectivel; Lrhi bc: letic, A5 brought on by the Id. Counsel of the asgessee, the transaction belween partner and firi has been held {0 be nol , coming undler Lhne: gmbil aeceptance cH" rehalIIZLIL {f" loanjadvances under section 269SS and 269T of the Act. In this regard: #4 I13} gaintully refer to thc following decisions: 1 CIT vs_ V.Sivakunar (2013) 354 IR 9 ( Mad.} #ieh rrlels &S UIder; 5. The assessee had Laken the amounts Irom four Virms #hieh were' fi)lct to be in cash &nd the Assessing Oflicer has considered these payinents were in violalion of Section 2698S of the Acl. Stand of asscssce is Ihal Ihc amounts were taken in his capacily as partner and it cannayt be taken &+ An independent transaclion ad there is Jo viulation t' Selicn 269S$ m/" tlie' Act The partnership firm has no separate legal entily. "Ihere is; Mt) separale identification between the firm and the partner Tribunal relied Up) Ulie decision in CIT v, RM. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that ~tthere cannol be a contract ot service in strict law hetwccn 4 firin and onc o/ ils parners; Sc) is H? consider the salary paid Io the parlner :S incoma' |rumn thc sulary' uncl hcld lhat (or the purpose ol Sections 269SS and 2697. lhe firm &nd partncrs cannoi be considered to be separate enlily" The [Ion 'blee Suprcme Court 96 ITA Nos: 292 & 29WNag /Z0 Shri Shuilenetrakumur Gorardhandas Agrcwer furhcr held that "payment 0l' salary 10 a partner represents & special share of the prolits and salary paid to & parlner retains Ihe same character of the incore 0l the firm" and delcted the penalty. 6, In CIT v, Lokhpat Filin Exchange (Cinema) |2008| 304 ITR [72 (Raj} I0 #as hcld [hat parlnership lireng iS not 4 jurislic person and for inlcr relalianship dillerent remedies are provided to enforce the righls arising Out of their inter se transaclions and thal the inter se transactions between the partncr and firm arc not governed by the provisions 0l Sections 269SS and 269T of the Acl 7. Relying upomn Uhe decisions in RM: Chidambaram Pillai' $ case (supra); Asstt: DIT (Investigation) V Kum. A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 [TR 258; Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema}8 case (supra) Tribunal contined the finding of Commissioner of Incoine Tax (Appeals) thal partnership lirm is nol # juristic person and there is no separate identity for lhe tirm incL partners and that the transacticns betiveen the firm and lle partner caneicyg Qe brcught #ilhin the meaning of' Section 269SS of the Acl 8. Apart from lhe issue about the separate cntity_ being a partner the assessec had drawn amounts Iromn the firms and there are no reasong Lq doubl thc genuinencss 0l the transactions, This Court in CITv. Kundralhur Finance & Chil Co [2006] 283 ITR 329 (ollowing the decision of the Flon 'ble Supreme Court in. Kum A.B. Shanthi $ cast: (supra) held that "jf there was genuine and bonafide transaclion and the tax payer could nol get & loan Or deposit by account payee cheque Or demand draft for somne bonafide reason, the authority vested with the power fn imposc penalty has a discrelion nol to Hevy penalty 9. In C[] v, Deccan Designs (India} (P,) Ltd. (2012] 347 ITR S80, loans iyere taken from sister concerm under condition business exigency_ Referring to Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co' 8 case (supra); CITvs_Balaji Tnders_302 ITR 342 (Mad) and ClT v. Ratna Agencies [20061 284 ITR 609 (Mad. 1 the Division Bench of this Court dismnissed the appeal holding uhat "zhere #ere' enough teasons otfcred by the assessee to justify the cash Iransactions which it made with its sister concern' and that consequenccs of violalion of Section 269SS is not attracled IO: In C[T v_ Lakshmi Trust Co. [2008] 303 ITR 99. the Division Bipch o[' lhis Court held that "il' thcre were genuine and banafide Iransactiong un1d Lhne' Uax payer cotild nol get 4 Loan r Deposit by accouni payee cheque or demand dralit for some bonafide reason, the &ulhority vcsled with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to Jevy penalty" II. Referring to RM: Chidambaram Pillai (supra): Kum. A,B Shanti (supra): Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (supra) Tribunal held thal there is no Separate idcntity for the parlnership firm and that the parlnet is entitled tc use Ihe funds of the fir and that the assessee acted bonatide and that there was 4 reagonable cause within the meaning of 9T IT.A Nus, 292 & 2wJ/Nug;Zuls Shri Shailenerakumar Gerardhomnckas Agranra} Section 273B of the Ac We do not find any errer o lezal inlirnnil} im Ahe' order of Ihe Trihunal uarranting inlerlrenee. The >uhxlAMntial quextitn {' law raised in this appeal is answered in fuvour 0f Ihe #ssessee and the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. CIT vS, Lokhpal Film Exchange (Cinema) (2008) 304 {TR ! 7Z (Ruj:} Ilas 2 held as under: 2 These [wo appeals arise out of two scparate orders pissed by thc AO levying penalty under Sections 2710 and 2715 in respect ( cerlin Iransactions betwcen thc: assessee (irnn Ehhdd jis partits deoeribed a13 deposits from the parlners. The Iransaclitmn rciales Lu receipl of deposit during the accounting period relevanl Lo aSS1, yr 1990-91 tiom its partners Shri Jay P. Molinani and Shri Bhagwali Chandnani by wuy of deposits Thc A() considering it to be intra party transactions of deposit othernise lhen by way Of cheque ar bink arali inviting the proi isicms +/' Sectitms 269SS und 269T and considering 1hese payments indl Fepanemt- Verl Mz viqlaliun of Seclions 269SS and 2690 inposed penally inder Sections 271D and ZTIE respectively for receiving the deposit in cash and payinent in cash: Thc assessee had claimed thal in view" 4l Lhe Jit that @kiriners ael tirm ur; not independeni of each olher und Ihc tirm is nx jurislic person; Ilesl' trunsactions cannot be considcred as intra person bul #ere only for the purpose of carrying %n partners Qwn business. The fact that under the IT Acl the firm and partners ofthe firm are recagnised a8 independent units lhe same cannot be treated for all purposcs to be Separite and independent The assessec had contended thal in [hil +ict ol 1he: #ller; thc%} hac} 1J4M1 vjolaled Ihc requiremcni of' Sections 269SS and 269[ while conducting these Iransactions. However, the AQ) did not accepl this explanation ancl rejecled the plea of the essessee and imposed penaltics under Sections 271D and 274E. The penalties were not sustained by thc: CIT(A) 3, The Tribunal relying on & decision in CIT v. RM, Chidamharam Pillai elc. 1977 CTR (SC) 71 (1977) [06 FTR 292 (SC) wherein Lhe Supreme Court has said thal lhere cannol be a contract nf' Service, in strict Juu , benwvcen & firm and one Of its parincrs *0 as l0 cansider Ihe slary pjic [4) the pariner aS incume ftom salary held Ihat for the purpose 01 Sccuions 269SS and 269T also the lirm and parlners cannol bc considercd 1o be separate entity ad deleted the penalty. 48 IT4 Nos 292 & 293, Vg,/202 ~Shri Shailendrakumar Gverclhultlus Agrah' Hence; lhese two appeals are before US raising the comnmon issuc in bolh @ppeals.

4.

Thc: lirnn was consliluled #ith 2 particular object of constructing cinema and is now "} more in existence. Section 273B has mitigated the penulty Lo be levied under Sections 271D and 271E by providing that wherc assessee is ahle to establish that therc was reasonable cause for failure !Q ctmmply with Scetions 269SS and 269T. no penalty is leviable. By considering the decision ol the Supreme Court in the aforcsaid decision and considering Ihe facts that under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies ure provided to enforce the rights arising (l 0/' their inter Se Uransactions lhe issue aboul separate entities apart. iL cannol be doubted that the assessee ha5 acted bona tidc and his plea thal inter se transactions between the partners and the firm are nOL govered by the provisions of Sections 26988 and 269T was bona fide and reasonable ground existed on which they had not adhered to the requircment of' coducting the transaction through bank only: Therefore. tYI thc Iiets Itnd hy the Ao a5 Well as the Tribunal, tle assessee waS Olhenvise nol liable to be subjected t0 penalty. 6, In view thcreof, we hold that no interference is called for in thc order ol the Tribunal setling aside the penalty under Sections 271D and 271E, 13 In1 uccordance with Ihe aforesaid casc law, we find that since the transaction is hclween d partner and firm; The said transaction cannot be said to be coming under the inhit ( Ioitns 'advances. The xbove case laws further show that the circumstances &s above; i..- the transaction betwcen the firm and its partner can be gaid tu givc the ZSSCSSCL 9 Teasonable belicf that the same would not attract the provisions of section 269Ss utd 2691 0/ the Acl Hence. ( the (ouch slone ol the provisions af section 273B, it can be said Uat thc assessee had a reasonable cause to believe that its transaction with 'thc !irmn did not allract the provisiong of section 269SS ad 269T of the Acl Hence. Tn 7 Y Uhe: aniL(y-suclipnn-2 73Btalso. Ihc assessee"$ failure in lhis regard can be said to bc for & reasopable causc and hence; 'the penalty W/s. 271D and 271E are not attracted The other 1] ITA 1TX JV}4 ?93 tg JW15 5Vn*1 Situtifx}l-exk LIWIEI' ( Ft!1'E#"ckicInclet; Awu-ttli'_N} case laws referred by Ihe Id. Counsel of the asgessee Bre germane and support the case of deletion of penalty in this case. Hence; we are o4 the considered opinion thft there' is I0 infirmity in the order of the Id. Commissioncr of Inceme [ax (Appeals) Accordingly. we uphold the samne. 14_ In the result. these appeals by thc Revcnue stands dlismissecl Order pronounced by listing the result un Ihe Notice Bourd 0f the Bench under Rule 3404) 0f the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, Sdl Sdl/ - RAM LAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03,07.2018 SHAMIM YAHYA ACCQUNTANT MEMBER Copyelthe order forwardedte: {J} The Assessee; (2] The Revenue; 63) The CT(A1: {4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned; The DR, ITAT Nagpur ; Guard file. (5) 'i" By Order Roshani: Sr: PS (Sr. PS.PS ) ITAT Mrf Hn Dnuocients 4437 4 Inom. # If Trut 7m7? #j" Bh 6"

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →