KAILASH CHAND GOYAL,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAWAI MADHOPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 14-02-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2006-07 in the matter of Section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively, raising ground of appeal

as mentioned at Form No. 36 in respective appeals. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, it is noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before the ld. CIT(A) in respect of both the appeals i.e. Section 271D and 2 KAILASH CHAND GOYAL VS ADD. CIT, SWAIMADHOPUR 271E of the Act. It is further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeals of the assessee has rejected the claims of the assessee on merit after considering the written submission. The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the above appeals are as under:- ‘’Appeal u/s 271D ‘’15.2 I have gone through the facts of the cases, the penalty order and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has tried to paint the picture with different brush by treating these transactions as mere arrangement of keeping someone’s money in his safeguard so that the does not come into the ambit of violation of Section 269SS. The above said amounts are clearly loans/ deposits taken/ accepted by the assessee in violation of Section 269SS of the Act. Thus, I do not concur with the appellant’s submission and hence penalty levied is upheld. 16…

17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ ‘’Appeal u/s 271E ‘’12.3 I do not concur with the appellant opinion.. The appellant has tried to paint the picture with different brush by treating these transactions as mere arrangement of keeping someone’s money in his safeguard so that the does not come into the ambit of violation of Section 269SS. The above said amounts are clearly loans/ deposits taken/ accepted by the assessee in violation of Section 269SS of the Act. Thus, I do not concur with the appellant’s submission and hence penalty levied is upheld. 12.4 The contention that assessee has not paid any interest while repaying the said amount and hence the sum 3 KAILASH CHAND GOYAL VS ADD. CIT, SWAIMADHOPUR cannot be treated as loan does not hold good as Section 269T does not talks about applicability of interest of any level. Charging of interest is not a mandatory term / condition within the purview of Section 269T. 12.5 Regarding the appellant’s claim of genuineness of the transaction is not sufficient but reasonable it to be stated for acceptation of loans in cash. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Sunil M Kasliwal (2005) 94 ITD 281 TTJ 01/(2004) 2 SOT 596 (™)(Pune)(Trib) had adjudicated on identical footing. ……. 12.6 In view of above, the appellant has violated the provisions of Section269T and hence he liable for imposing penalty u/s 271E. Thus penalty levied u/s 271E is upheld. Thus Ground No. 7(i) to (vii) are dismissed. 13… 14. In result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee specifically argued that no sufficient opportunity was granted by the ld. CIT(A) to put forth his submission. He further submitted that Since A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee is not filing income tax returns and therefore being not connected vide ITBA Portal, the assessee did not receive 08 notices detailed in para 4 of appeal order but it is also a fact that his address was with ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the Department was having access to him through other mode of communication, however, the ld. CIT(A) did not opt so. He further submitted that ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC erred in applying CBDT Circular No. 10/DV/2016 dated 26-04-2016 because in Rajasthan CBDT Circular No. 09/DV/2016 was applicable. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) did not think