M/S. MICROZONE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-4, Bangalore dated 31.03.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

The grounds raised

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 20.06.2019 and the notice of hearing was sent to assessee by RPAD and served on assessee as per acknowledgment card available on record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing and there is no request for adjournment and hence, this appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of ld. DR of revenue and gone through the orders of authorities below. 5. We find that as per ground no. 3 raised by assessee before CIT(A), this was the contention raised before CIT(A) that the AO has failed to consider the provisions of section 273B of the IT Act as per which no penalty shall be levied if the failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS is due to reasonable cause. Similar ground is raised before us also as per ground no. 3 as reproduced above. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as per para 6 of his order which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. “6. The AO's Observation / findings and the assessee's submissions have been duly considered. The judicial position in the factual matrix of the present case has been duly analyzed. The assessee's contentions are not found to be acceptable in the facts & circumstances emerging for consideration. It is clearly evident that, the apparent violation of the provisions of section 269SS was highlighted by the assessee's own auditor in the form 3CD, indicating acceptance of cash receipts above the threshold limit of Rs. 20,000/-. It is also apparent that the impugned amounts were shown under the account - head loans, thereby attracting the impugned provisions of section 271D of the I.T. Act. The assessee's submissions that the transaction were in the nature of day to day working capital cash requirements, is not adequately substantiated nor, does it explain as to why a separate account (besides loan account) was not maintained in this regard, in the assessee's books. The judicial pronouncement relied upon by the assessee are not found to be squarely applicable to the present facts, wherein the audit report and form 3CD, itself acclaims the alleged violation of section 269SS. The Assessee's case is also not explained by the exceptional circumstances, provided within the section 269SS/271D of the IT. Act, especially in view of the fact that sufficient banking facilities exist everywhere in Bangalore, where payments