TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai ('ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 12.04.2017 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The ground of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271D r.w.s. 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 274 initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271D dated 05.03.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee firm. 4. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee firm failed to comply any details / documents to satisfactorily explain that the unsecured loan taken from M/s. P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. was not in cash. Thus, penalty of Rs. 9,75,000/- under section 271D of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss exigency and requirement and the same was utilized in the business of the appellant. The AR further states that as the amount was not in the nature of loan, the provisions of section 269SS would not be applicable and hence would not attract penalty u/s 271D. Reliance was placed in the decisions taken in the case of QT vs Parmanand (2004) 266 ITR 0255 (Delhi HC), CU vs Manoj Lalwani (2003) 260 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y sustained. The ground is rejected. 7. Against the above order, the assessee has filed an appeal before us. 8. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perused the records. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The acknowledgement of the notice issued is duly on record. 9. Upon careful consideration, we agree with the finding of the ld. CIT(A)....