2011 (4) TMI 1157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y in the context of the finding that there was no reasonable cause was not based on any material before it ?   2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not deleting the penalty in the light of the Supreme Court's decision reported in Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A. B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258 (SC) and more particularly in the absence of a finding as to the non-genuineness of the loan ?   3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified in confirming the penalty on short accommodations especially when the officer himself eliminated short accommodations from levying penalty ?"   2. The assessee is doing the business of purchase and sell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the financier, who got them discounted and paid the money in cash to the assessee. For this, the assessee had issued post-dated cheques to the financier assuring repayment. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the apex court in the case of Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A. B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258 (SC) upholding the provisions of section 269SS or section 271D or section 276DD and allowed the Revenue's appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out to the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in respect of various amounts levy of penalty, and submitted that the Assessing Officer had failed to tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the case, we find that except for mere statement that the receipt of amount in cash was on account of the business exigency and to meet the liquidity, there is hardly any material to show that in fact there was a real exigency that compelled the assessee to go for cash loan.   7. The Assessing Officer found that there were 72 items of cash loan on various dates during the course of the year, and after eliminating short accommodations, restricted the disallowance on 16 items for the purpose of considering the levying of penalty under section 271D. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Kum. A. B. Shanthi v. Asst. Director....