ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SRB INVESTMENT & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2506/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 2018AY 2010-115 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the loan was accepted through entries, but there was no actual receipt of money through cash or cheque, and the funds were given via account payee cheque.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed on the assessee for accepting a loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- otherwise than by account payee cheque. The AO believed this violated Section 269SS, but the assessee claimed it was only journal entries without actual cash or cheque movement.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS is sustainable when the transaction was only through book entries and not actual cash or cheque movement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi dated 12.2.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts that assessee had itself admitted during the penalty proceedings that there is violation of section 269SS.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts that in this case there is a apparent cash transaction has been made by assessee and in every manner the assessee failed to justify

the source of receiving / giving the amount.

3. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo

any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 4.3.2013 at a loss of Rs. 2,13,144/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee has accepted the loan amounting to Rs. 34,00,000/- from Sh. Siddarath Bishnoi otherwise than by account payee chqeue or bank draft. The AO considered the transactions in violation of provision of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, it was explained by the A.R. of the assessee to the AO that ther was no involvement of cash , it was only journal entries passed in the books of account in the assessee’s company. However, the AO, after considering the nature of transaction formed opinion that assessee company has willfully taken the entries to hide the transaction and accordingly, levied a penalty of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s. 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 27.8.2013. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. Pr. CIT (OSD)(Appeals-8), New Delhi who vide his impugned order 12.02.2015 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty in dispute.

3.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the 5.

Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the orders of the revenue authorities. We find that in this case amount of loan was accepted by entry. However, there was no receipt of money through cash or cheque or any other mode by the assessee. Even the money was given on behalf of Sh. Kuldeep Bishnoi was through account payee cheque, hence, the penalty is not sustainable and was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

7.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 02/07/2018.

More judgments on Section 269SS

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →