TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 in which the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be deleted. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds: - "1'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty U/S 271D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee was not able to prove that the cash withdrawals made by her as director from the company were utilized for the purpose of business of the company and as such were in the nature of cash loans taken by the assessee from the company." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20.10.2005 20,000 23.10.2005 5,00,000 05.01.2006 30,000 17.02.2006 30,000 Total 31,67,000 5. Thereafter the notice was given to the assessee as to why the said amount should not be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the said amount was treated as loan advanced by company to the Director/share holder having more than 10% shares, therefore, the same was treated as deemed income in view of the Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the assessee accepted the loans in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, therefore, the penalty proceeding u/s 271D of the Act was initiated and penalty in sum of Rs. 31,67,000/- u/s 271D of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is self-explanatory for what is stated above. b) The Appellant in this regard, states that Rs. 72,000 dated 23.12.2005 is not a withdrawal from the bank as it is evident from the bank statement enclosed herewith. It is stated that out of Rs. 31,67,000 - Rs. 3,00,000 dated 08.02.2006 & Rs. 40,000 dated 10.02.2006 is a deposit and not withdrawal as it is evident from the bank statement enclosed herewith. Thus, appellant states that the Ld. AO has treated certain figures as withdrawals from the bank which was not withdrawn. The repeated figures is total of Rs. 4,12,000/- an aggregate of Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 40,000. Accordingly, the correct withdrawal is Rs. 27,55,000/- and not Rs. 31,67,000/- as alleged by the AO. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made. The nature of the business of the business of the Appellant's company demand such quantum of cash to be kept ready for its disposal and i\is a need of a business in its regular course. e) The Appellant states that out of the above withdrawal of Rs. 27,55,000, only Rs. 60,000 was spent as company's expenditure for KFC 06 Project and the balance of Rs. 26,95,000 were re-deposited as referred above. These re-deposits are reflected in company's bank account. D Without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had submitted all the bills, invoices and details of re-deposited unutilized cash into the bank account during the course of assessment vide letter dated 05/03/2013, the Learned Assessing Officer treated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore requires no further comments. A copy of Affidavit is enclosed herewith for your ready perusal. The Learned Assessing Officer has tried to plug the independent transactions of the company into the Appellant's neck forcefully as if she has taken loan from the company which is far from the truth. Since no payment was made to the Appellant by the company as a Loan or Advance, the provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of the Act does not attract." Based on the above Appellant's contention, your honour has stated vide Para 9.3 at Page no. 8 of the CIT (A) Order dated 30.03.2015 for the AY 2006-07 as below: "The Affidavit submitted by Matrix Company is kept on record. I have carefully perused the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty and passed the order judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed. ITA NO.4599/M/2015:- 8. The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 in which the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be deleted. 9. The revenue has raised the following grounds: - "1'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in de....