TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch were subsequently revised on 12/11/2005 as under: ITA NO. 4115 /Del/2012 "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,10,000/- levied u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that cash loans of Rs. 11,00,000/- and Rs. 2,10,000/- were found in the ledger account of M/s Shah Sons Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the assessee as received on 9.4.2006 and 28/02/2007 respectively in contravention of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,10,000/- levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was so, the entries should have been made in the assessee's capital account and not in business related a/c of party. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Addl. CIT, Range-2, Meerut, restored. " 2. In the case, the impugned order of Commissioner of Income tax ( Appeals) was passed on 13/09/2011 and accordingly , the appeals to the Tribunal were required to filed within 60 days of receipt of orders by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, whereas appeals have been filed on 31/07/2012. The revenue filed application on 26/08/2013 for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Senior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay in filing the appeal. 5. The facts in brief in the case are that during scrutiny proceedings under section 143 (3) of the Act for the year under consideration ,the Assessing Officer observed from the books of accounts of the assessee that in the ledger account of M/s Shah sons private limited, cash loans of Rs. 11,00,000/- on 09/04/2006 and Rs. 2,10,000/- on 28/02/2007 were received and repayment of these loans were also made in cash on 17/06/2006 and 25/03/2007 respectively. The assessee was asked to explain on 30/11/2009 as why the penalty for violation of the provisions of section 269 SS and 269T of the Act may not be initiated. In response, the counsel of the assessee in the written submission dated 29/12/2009 submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income-tax for levy of the penalty, who issued notices on 27/01/2010 proposing to levy penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act, but there was no compliance. Again notices were sent on 10/06/2010, however none attended. In view of the circumstances, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax levied penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act, each of Rs. 13,10,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and made detailed submission enclosing the copies of agreements. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals) in view of the agreements to sale of the inherited property held that the amount received by the assessee were advances and not loan or deposits and therefore no p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... my considered view, should have led him towards an addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO, however, did not do so from which it can be inferred that he did not find the sums, received by the appellant, to be unexplained. The question that needs to be gone into, therefore, is whether the amount received could be held as being loan or deposit or an advance against agreement for sale of land. The appellant, both before the AO and during the appellate proceedings, produced copies of Ekrarnama (Agreements) as under: i. Agreement for sale on 9.4.2006 between Lokesh Kumar (Vendor) & Shri Om Prakash (Vendee) for Rs. 25 lakhs against which Rs. 11 lakhs was given as advance on 9.4.2006. The said agreement stipulated t....