2010 (2) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the assessee. 2. It was the submission by the Ld. A.R. that in the course of assessment, it was noticed from the Annexure J to the Form 3CD accompanying the audit report that the auditors had mentioned that the assessee had repaid two loans other than by accounts payee cheques/accounts payee demand drafts. It was the submission that the Annexure showed the payment of ₹ 17 lacs to M/s. Perfect Softech Pvt. Ltd. and another payment of ₹ 4.80 lacs to M/s. Enpro Telecom P. Ltd., which had been made other than by accounts payee cheques or accounts payee demand drafts. It was the submission that as the payment had been made in violation of the provisions of Section 269T of the Act, penalty u/s 271E of the Act had been levied. It wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see has been debited on 03.01.2004 on account of clearing and the accounts of M/s. Perfect Softech P. Ltd. showed the transaction dated as 02.01.2004 whereas the value date was 03.01.2004. It was the further submission that even in Annexure 2 of the audit report in respect of column; "Whether the repayment was made other than by accounts payee cheques or accounts payee demand drafts", it was only written as 'yes' which actually was intending to mean that the amount has been paid by accounts payee cheque. It was the further submission that the cheque itself showed that the cheque as an account payee cheque and the fact that it has been cleared through bank account clearly shows that it is an a/c payee cheque only. In respect of the payment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y as cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A) of the loan transferred from M/s. Enpro Telecom P. Ltd. to M/s. Perfect Softech P. Ltd. was also not hit by the provisions of Section 269T in view of the following decisions: CIT Vs Govind Kumar, 119 Taxman 110 (Raj.) Sunflower Builders P. Ltd. Vs DCIT, 61 ITD 227 (Pune) ITO v. Amar Naath Shivraj (HUF),1 SOT 346 (Agra) ACIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Proteins Ltd., 3 SOT 811 (Ahd.) 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the penalty order of the CIT(A). A perusal of the penalty order shows that the amount of ₹ 17 lacs has been cleared through cheque No.25984 dated 03.01.2004 from the account of the assessee. The accounts of M/s. Perfect Softech P. Ltd. extracted in the penalty orde....