AMIT CHAKRAPANI,FARIDABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-1,, FARIDABAD

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Faridabad dated 08.02.2018 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, wherein penalty u/s 271D of the Act levied by the Addl CIT, Range-I, Faridabad of Rs. 2,50,000/- is confirmed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.0. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [here in after referred to as CIT (A)] has grossly erred in dismissal of appeal by the appellant that the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act, passed by the Ld. Joint Commissioner in relation to imposition of penalty, under normal provisions of the Act is barred by limitation, erroneous, unjustified, wholly arbitrary and bad in law on the following grounds: (each grounds/facts is prejudice to each other) 2.0. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant that the penalty order dated 31/03/2016 passed by Ld. Joint commissioner is barred by limitation on the ground that order has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 275 of the Act. 3.0. That without prejudice to the above ground, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard, only one Page |

1. Amit Chakrapani Vs. JCIT (Assessment Year: 2008-09) hearing was provided and no final hearing was provided before assessing the order. 4.0. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the grounds taken herein above, Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has ignored the ground of reasonable cause and business exigency while imposing the penalty. 5.0. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the grounds taken herein above, the assessee was not having any mala-fide intention to evade any tax or any rules. 6.0. That on the facts & circumstances and without prejudice to the above ground, the stay on recovery of demand be provided till the case is not adjourned by the authority.”

3. The brief facts of the case shows that assessment u/s 147 was passed on 12.03.2015 and during the course of assessment it was noted that assessee has accepted cash loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- in violation of section 269SS of the Act. On 11.05.2015, the ld AO referred the case to the Adll. CIT for initiation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act the Addl. CIT issued notice on 09.09.2015.

4. The assessee submitted that there is a reasonable cause for acceptance of the loan. The assessee stated that he has entered into an MOU dated 01.03.2007 and therefore, loan from Shri N.K. Sharma was taken in cash of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The assessee submitted that on 31.08.2007 the assessee received Rs. 2,40,000/- from Shri N. K. Sharma and on the same dated Rs. 2.50 lakhs was advanced to Smt Monica Mittal. He therefore, submitted that as the money was to be paid to Smt Monica Mittal same was accepted in cash from Mr. N. K. Sharma. The ld Addll. CIT rejected the explanation of the assessee and stated that there is no reasonable cause and levied a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs vide order dated 31.03.2016. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A) and before the ld CIT(A) the assessee submitted the order is time barred. The ld CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that penalty was initiated on 09.09.2015 and the penalty has been levied on 31.03.2016 i.e. within 6 months of initiation, therefore, it is not barred by limitation.

Amit Chakrapani Vs. JCIT (Assessment Year: 2008-09) On merits of the case the assessee submitted that ‘means rea’ need to be established before levying of penalty. The ld CIT(A) rejected the same. He held that the assessee is required to establish the ‘reasonable cause’ which has not been shown. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.