TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sudhakar,J.) The above Tax Case (Appeals) are filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty order passed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act?" 2. The assessment in this case relates to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who after following the decision of this Court reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), held as follows: "19. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that share application money received by way of transfer of shares held by Smt.Bab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any, as understood by the provisions of Section 273B. Accordingly, penalty imposed in terms of Section 271D for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 is hereby deleted in its entirety." 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue has filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeals, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue, wherein this Court held as follows: ".....if the assessee proves that there is a reasonable cause, he is not subject to levy of penalty. The case of the asses-see is that, the amount received by the assessee is only for the purpose of allotment of sha....