2014 (4) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot coming under the purview of S. 271D of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied. It be quashed.    2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering properly the ground of appeal raised before him that penalty proceedings were barred by limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the penalty proceedings as barred by limitation. The penalty levied be quashed.     3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Reasonable cause pleaded before him within the meaning of S. 273B of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (2012) 345....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sits in violation of provisions of section 269SS. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- equal to the sum accepted in violation of provisions of section 269SS was imposed on assessee under the provisions of section 271D of the Income Tax Act which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. A plain reading of section 269SS makes it clear that there is no such phrase occurring in section 269SS as to indicate that provisions will not apply to genuine transactions as pleaded by the assessee. The provisions will apply when loan or deposits accepted or otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee draft and the amount of such loan or deposit or aggregate amount of such loan or deposit is Rs.20,000/- or more. Only safety is provided under the provisi....