Smt Parinita Hati Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-1, Hooghly
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed
ITA 920/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010
Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 920/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Parinita Hati Chowdhury.............................……………………………………………Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co. Chartered Accountants, Diamond Chambers Unit Iii, 4Th Floor, Suit No. 4G 4, Chowringhee Lane Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Adlpr2179P] J.C.I.T., Range-1………………………………………………................................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Khadinamore G.T. Road, P.O. Chinsurah Hooghly - 712101 Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 10.03.2015 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 53,000/- Imposed By The Ao Under Section 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Partner In The Partnership Firm Of M/S. S. Hati. As Noticed By The Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Of The Said Firm For A.Y. 2009-10, Loan Of Rs. 53,000/- Taken By The Assessee From The Said Firm Was Repaid In Cash. Since There Was A Violation Of Section 269T Of The Act
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271E
…in the case of Agarwal Kejriwal & Co. (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee wherein the penalties imposed u/s 271D and 271E were deleted by the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs V. Sivakumar 262 CTR 109 wherein it was held that where the partner has given loan in cash and the firm has also repaid the said loan in cash, there is no violation of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act since the partner has no independent identity from that of the firm. In our opinion, the ratio of these judicial pronouncements is squarely applicable in…
