TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,29,000 levied u/s 271E is not correct either on facts or in law and in both. 2. The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 269T were not applicable to the amounts paid in cash by the appellant. 3. The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the appellants claim that the amounts in question are Date of Hearing: 17.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2018 neither loans nor advances and hence the levy of penalty u/s 271E is unjustified. 4. The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the circumstances under which the amounts were paid in cash by the appellant". 3. Against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd consequently had received a sum of Rs. 6,29,000 and the assessee had taken out the DD accordingly. But, since the transaction did not go through, the DDs were cancelled and the amounts were repaid to his children, and therefore, the transaction is not a loan and the penalty is not leviable. The AO, however, did not accept the assessee's contention and observed that the transaction does not fall in any of the exemptions laid down u/s 269SS and 269(T) of the Act and therefore, penalty is leviable. He, accordingly levied penalty u/s 271E and 271D of the Act against which the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) however, confirmed the penalty levied by the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The learn....