2018 (5) TMI 1011

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the penalty as imposed U/s. 271 E of the IT Act, 1961 by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I Cuttack is arbitrary, excessive and bad in law. 2. That there has been clear violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the first appeal order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack as the appellant has appeared through its advocate and had filed written submission and arguments, the Commissioner of Income 'fax (Appeals) should have passed the order on merit and should not have passed ex-parte order for non submission of documents asked for by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack. 3. That it is no more res Integra that the natural justice has been variously defined by differ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osition of penalty. 6. That it is not in dispute that the appellant has repaid loan/deposit by debiting the account through journal entries. The question is, whether such repayment of loan/deposit is in contravention of the modes of repayment set out in Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? But the bonafide transaction of repayment of loan/deposit by way of adjustment through book entries carried out in the ordinary course of business would not come within the mischief of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because, the section does not make any distinction between the bonafide and non-bonafide transactions and requires the entities specified therein not to make repayment of any loan/deposit together with the interest, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assessing Officer disposed of the proceedings u/s.271E of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 28,91,029/-. 3. Ld A.R. submitted that thereafter the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) fixed the appeal for hearing on the following dates: " 21.8.2012, 10.9.2013, 7.10.2013, 28.10.2013, 8.11.2013, 13.12.2013, 15.1.2014, 23.1.2014, 15.7.2014, 20.8.2014 and 1.9.2014." 4. Before the CIT(A) also, the assessee did not appear and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The assessee has now filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When questioned by the Bench what were the reasons for noncompliance of notice of hearing before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), ld A.R. could not give any satisf....