2018 (1) TMI 1294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer u/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 28. 01. 2015. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the penalty u/s 271D imposed by the AO of Rs. 29,00,000/-. 2. That the assessee reserves the right to amend, alter or add to any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. " 3. The brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee company incorporated on 16. 08. 2006 and the share capital on incorporation of the company was at Rs. 1,50,000/- which was received in cash and no bank account was maintained by the assessee company. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able with the AO as well as the ld. Additional Commissioner. Copies of the account payee demand drafts produced were the following: Sl. No. In favour of Draft No. Amount Date Made in 1. Kharun Begum 276230 9,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 2. Narmada Devi 276226 5,50,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 3. Khatun Begum 276231 4,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 4. Narmada Devi 276229 2,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 5. Narmada Devi 276228 4,50,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allahabad Bank, Jaipur 0211867 6. Narmada Devi 26227 1,00,000/- 11. 08. 2006 Allah....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said payments had also been shown to be not in cash. Therefore, ld CIT(A) held that there is no any violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, he deleted the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. 5. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has defended the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that stand taken by the ld DR for the Revenue are not backed ....