TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notings, and even called upon the departmental representative to place his counter submission as regards the same, by so doing had therein admitted the same, and no objection/defect as regards the same was ever brought to the notice of the appellant firm, either by the registry or by the bench? 2. Whether the findings of the Tribunal that the appellant firm had not furnished any documentary evidence or any explanation either before it or before the lower authorities being perverse cannot be sustained in the eyes of law? 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the penalty imposed in the hands of the appellant firm under section 271D of the Act for technical/venial breach of the provisions of section 269SS, specifically when the said loan transaction stood duly recorded in the books of account which were unilaterally produced before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings and neither the genuineness of the loan nor the source thereof had ever been doubted by the AO while framing the assessment of the appellant firm? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty imposed under section 271D of the Act in respect of a cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was duly recorded by the appellant firm in its books of account.The said amount including Rs. 10,726/- was deposited by the appellant towards full and final discharge of the entire outstanding bank liability and consequently,the aforesaid joint family property lying with the bank was got released. The case of the appellant was taken up for scrutiny proceedings. Penalty proceedings for raising the loan by the appellant firm in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act were initiated by the Addl. CIT, Moga. The appellant aggrieved by the order filed appeal before the CIT(A) Ludhiana which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.2.2011, Annexure A-3. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 20.9.2012, Annexure A-6, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In terms of the order dated 27.1.2014, learned counsel for the appellant has produced the revenue record to show Jugraj Singh son of Shri Gurdev Singh r/o Village Randiala from whom the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.5 lacs in cash had sufficient means....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2009. This show cause notice remained uncomplied as neither the assessee attended the penalty proceedings nor any written reply has been received. Again a fresh show cause notice No.180 dated 24.4.2009 was issued for 29.4.2009, which was duly served upon the assessee on 27.4.2009. This show cause notice also remained uncomplied as none attended nor any written reply has been received in this office. To meet the ends of justice again a show cause notice No.484 dated .5.2009 was issued for 14.5.2009 which was duly served upon the assessee on 12.5.2009. This show cause notice also remained uncomplied as neither the assessee attended the penalty proceedings nor the assessee sent any written explanation in this regard. In the absence of any reply by the assessee, it is presumed that assessee has nothing to say in this matter and the appellant firm accepts its default committed under the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The default of the appellant firm is clearly established as the appellant firm has accepted loan of Rs. 5 lacs in cash from Shri Jugraj Singh s/o Shri Gurdev Singh in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS and as such the assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Ravish Sood has filed paper book containing 96 pages out of which page 1 to 8 are the written submissions, which in fact, have not been read before us. Page 9 of the paper book is the photocopy of cash book which contains on one side deposit of Rs. 5 lacs from Shri Jugraj Singh s/o Shri Gurdev Singh and on the other side deposit of cash with PSB amounting to Rs. 5,10,726/- in cash on 29.10.2005. From paper book pages 10 to 96 there are copies of decisions of various courts of law. Infact, there is only one page of the cash book showing deposit of Mr. Jugraj Singh and the payment of Rs. 5,10,726/- to the Bank on 29.10.2005. The said page is unsigned by the assessee or by the learned counsel for the assessee and has no validity in the present case. There is no other explanation placed on record by the learned counsel for the assessee given before any of the authorities below. The learned counsel had advanced the arguments before this Bench as mentioned hereinabove without any documentary evidence or without furnishing any explanation before any of the authorities below or even befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepting any loan or deposit otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the action of the learned CIT(A), who has rightly confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed." 11. From the above, it would be discernible that the assessee-firm had accepted loan of Rs. 5 lacs in cash on 29.12.2005 from Shri Jugraj Singh. The assessee-firm was issued repeated show cause notices dated 19.1.2009, 24.4.2009 and 14.5.2009 but the assessee did not avail the opportunity to give any explanation justifying the transaction of accepting loan of Rs. 5 lacs from Jugraj Singh in cash in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee-firm had nothing to say in the matter and imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act for contravening Section 269SS of the Act. On appeal, it was noticed by the appellate authority that the plea of due exigency was not acceptable as according to it the loan was taken for discharging another bank loan and in such circumstances it could be by cheque. Before the Tribunal, paper book was filed which c....