TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sr/2016, for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271D by adopting reasoning that would negate the provisions of the statute and render Section 269SS of the I.T. Act a nullity? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in applying the provisions of Section 273B in a manner that would override the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act and violate the doctrine of harmonious construction? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3,Ferozepur. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 15.01.2010, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 21.12.2010, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Vide order dated 28.01.2016, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty amounting to Rs. 28,28,236/- holding the creditors to be genuine agriculturists and their cash transactions to be genuine an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he regularity of the transaction in case of each of the depositors, it was apparent that receipt and repayment were in the nature of inter se transactions. After examining the matter, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that the remand proceedings found the creditors to be genuine agriculturists and their cash transactions also to be genuine, in as much as there was confirmation of the money having been deposited and returned. It was categorically recorded that the impugned transactions could not be said to have been aimed at attempting to evade tax thereby causing loss to the revenue. Thus, the imposition of penalty under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act was not held to be justified. The relevant findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal that there was reasonable cause for entering into the above said transactions. The creditors from whom the cash was received and repaid were held to be genuine and confirmation to that act was obtained from the said persons and the transactions were not made for attempting to evade tax. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard read thus:- "While going through the material placed on record, we find that in the second round of appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) remanded the issue back to the office of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in his remand report submitted that the persons from whom cash was received and was subsequently repaid were identifiable agriculturist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be imposed. In the context of penalty provisions, words "reasonable cause" would definitely mean a cause which is beyond the control of the appellant. 7. XXXXXXXX We find that the learned CIT(A) has made a finding of fact that creditors from whom cash was received and cash was repaid were genuine and he has also made a finding of fact that a confirmation to that act was obtained from these persons and the transactions were not made for attempting to evade tax, therefore, he held that there was a reasonable cause for entering into such transactions. The learned CIT(A) has passed an exhaustive and elaborate speaking order, and we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A), therefore, the appeals filed by revenu....