TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax (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 of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter 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 Act was levied. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the penalty, therefore, the revenue has filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 AO has treated certain figures as withdrawals from the bank which was not withdrawn.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. C) The correct details of the case withdrawn and re-deposited are tabulated as under: Sr. No. Cash Withdrawn Date Amount Sr. No. Cash re-deposited Date Amount 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 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 these cash withdrawals as a loan or and given to the Appellant and treated the same as Deemed Dividend u/s. 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. g) The appellant states that there is no transfer of money from company A/c to the Appellant's A/c. Further, there is no evidence of company making any payment into Appellant's A/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany 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's written submission especially at par- (a), (b), (c), (d) & (g). It is seen that the correct cash withdrawal is Rs. 27,55,000/- and not Rs. 31,67,000/- as money the AO. The said amount has also been re-deposited as evidenced by the bank statements. There is no transfer of money from Company's account to the Appellant's account and so there is no loan or advance given by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome 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 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 of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deletin....