2014 (9) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Act dt. 10.3.2012 which are extracted for ready reference.     "M/s Worthwhile Developers P. Ltd. and M/s Jai Krishan Estates P. Ltd. made a MOU on 22.3.2005, M/s Worthwile Developers P. Ltd. invested a sum of Rs. 1,49,42,151/- against purchase of 7885.04 sq.ft. super area of 19 shops in Krishan Apra Plaza. As per MOU, M/s Jai Krishan Estates P. Ltd.was to sell the said shops at the prevailing market price and the sale proceeds collected would then be credited by M/s Jai Krishan Estates P. Ltd.to the account of the assessee and in lieu of these services M/s Jai Krishan Estates P. Ltd.would be paid Rs. 50/- per sq.ft. of shops sold. The assessee shown M/s Jai Krishan P. Ltd.as debtor for Rs. 66,36,955/- for earlier sale ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty on the ground that the payment has been received through account payee cheque and as such there is no violation of provisions of S.269SS of the Act. 5. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground.     "1. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,19,13,736/- imposed by AO u/s 271D of the I.T. Act."" 6. We have heard Shri "Rakesh Kumar, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Gautam Jain, FCA, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. 7. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal of material on record and orders of the lower authorities, as well as case laws cited, we hold as follows. 8. The Hon'ble De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of this admitted position, no infringement of s. 269SS of the Act is made out. This Court, in the case of Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (supra), considered a similar case where a company had paid money to the Government of Delhi for acquisition of a land on behalf of the assessee therein. The AO levied a penalty u/s 271D of the Act for alleged violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act since the books of the assessee reflected the liability on account of the lands acquired on its behalf. On appeal, the CIT(A) affirmed the penalty. The order of CIT was successfully impugned by the assessee before the ITAT. On appeal this Court held as under: "While holding that the provisions of section 269SS of the Act were not attracted, the Tri....