MOIN YUSUF KHAN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 13(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 366/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2018AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been properly represented before the AO in penalty proceedings and that the lower authorities had not discussed the factual merits. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to restore the penalties to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act for alleged violations of sections 269SS and 269T. The lower authorities, including the AO and CIT(A), had not considered the factual aspects of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under sections 271D and 271E were rightly imposed without proper consideration of facts and whether the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghavi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

& 366/Mum/2017 10.10.2016. The order under section 271D & 271E was passed vide order dated 19.03.2014.

2. In 271D of the Act on the amount of ₹ 4 lacs. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. Penalty Proceedings under s. 271D The Id. ClT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the impugned Order of penalty under s. 271D of the Income Tax Act. 1961.

Relief Claimed: The Order be cancelled

2. Attraction of provisions of s. 269SS . .

The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that then was no loan or deposit accepted by the appellant during the Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09 so as to attract provisions of s. 269SS Relief Claimed: The Order be cancelled.”

3.

Similarly, in the issue is as regards to levy of penalty under section 271E of the Act. For this assessee has raised the following grounds: -.

“1. Penalty Proceedings under s. 271E & 366/Mum/2017 The Id. ClT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the impugned Order of penalty under s. 271D of the Income Tax Act. 1961.

Relief Claimed: The Order be cancelled

2.

Attraction of provisions of s. 269ST . .

The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that then was no loan or deposit repaid by the appellant during the Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09 so as to attract provisions of s. 269T Relief Claimed: The Order be cancelled.

3. Treatment of payment Creditors as repayment of loans The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that were creditors paid and there was no repayment of loan or deposit by the appellant during the Financial Year 2007- 08 relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 so as to attract provisions of s. 269T.

Relief Claimed: The order be cancelled.”

4.

The learned Counsel for the assessee and learned Departmental Representative both fairly conceded that assessee has not represented before the AO in penalty proceedings for both the violation i.e. under section 271D and 271E of the Act and AO has passed ex-parte order. & 366/Mum/2017 Similarly, the CIT(A) has also not discussed the factual aspect of the case.

5.

After hearing both the sides and going through the orders of the AO i.e. penalty orders and the orders of CIT(A), we noticed that none of authorities below, has considered the facts relating to levy of penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act. Hence, in the interest of justice, we restore these two penalties to the file of the AO and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, these two penalties will be decided by AO denovo after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10-07-2018.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →