TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....additions of (Rs. 6,00,000/- + Rs. 2,00,000/-) = Rs. 8,00,000/- under the provisions of Sec.68 of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the appellant and refrained from upholding the impugned additions. 3. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Sec.68 of the Act were not applicable and accordingly the additions as made are opposed to law and liable to be deleted. 4. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that there was no entries in the books of accounts of the appellant with regard to the alleged receipt of part consideration from Mr.Debashish Sheel to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs from Mr.Abida Sayed and Mrs. Nishad Begum Shah to justify the application of Sec.68 of the Act. 5. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant having denied the receipts and there being no examination of the payers of the amounts, the impugned additions as made on the unsigned documents was opposed to law and accordingly the impugned additions are liable to be deleted. 6. Without prejudice, the additions are exces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 24.01.2013 submitted before the AO, copy available on pages 1 to 6 of the paper book and in particular our attention was drawn to page no. 6 of the paper book and it was pointed out that these two properties in question were sold in Assessment Year 2011-12 to a different buyer and the profit was declared in that year. Our attention was also drawn to pages 29 and 30 of the paper book which contain the copy of ledger account of Site No. 24 and Site No. 19 sold for Rs. 1,09,10,735/- and Rs. 76,23,440/- respectively in Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12. Reliance was placed on two judicial pronouncements. a) PCIT Vs. Talwalkars Fitness Club, (2018) 409 ITR 37 (Bom) b) CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai, (2007) 291 ITR 36 (High Court of Delhi). The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we find that the whole allegation is on the basis of these two agreements in question which are available on pages 31 to 36 and 37 to 42 of the paper book. This is true that in both these agreements, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs and Rs. 2 Lakhs respectively was paid by the two bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar whereas as per the earlier agreements in question, the consideration was of Rs. 61,86,300/- for Site No. 19 and Rs. 185 Lakhs for Site No. 24. Considering the facts of present case in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the AO on the basis of the two draft agreements is not justified in the facts of present case. Hence, we delete this addition. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 780/Bang/2017 is allowed. 5. Now we take up the next appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 781/Bang/2017. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under. "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in holding that the appellant did not offer any plausible explanation without looking into the submissions made along with evidence furnished in the course of hearing and accordingly the order passed was opposed to law and accordingly liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the amount received was neither a loan nor deposit and consequently the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on another judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 149 of 2009 dated 28.11.2014, copy submitted. Our attention was drawn to para nos. 9 and 10 of the first judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and para nos. 7 and 8 of the second judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is admitted position of law as per the provisions of section 273B of the IT Act that if assessee can prove that there was reasonable cause regarding violation of the provisions of section 269SS then penalty cannot be imposed u/s. 271D of the IT Act. Now we are to decide and examine only this aspect as to whether there was reasonable cause which prompted the assessee to accept the loan in cash. In this regard, we find that the reasons in this regard are explained by the assessee before the AO in penalty proceedings that the assessee company was compelled to pay cash on behalf of the assessee company to Suffia Khatooon & Others who in turn paid the same to the occupants / tenants who wer....