AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition and in the second appeal, the issue involved is about penalty u/s. 271D. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take up the quantum appeal in ITA No. 780/Bang/2017. The grounds raised by assessee in this appeal are as under. "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) erred in upholding the 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vendor i.e. the present assessee M/s. DRA Projects Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, in para 2 of the second agreement available on page no. 39 of the paper book, it is stated that the purchaser have agreed to pay total sale consideration of Rs. 185 Lakhs and has paid a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs by way of cash to the vendor as the advance amount towards the sale consideration. Thereafter it was submitted that both these agreements are although signed by the representative of the assessee company represented the Director Mr. Dinesh Ranka but in none of these two agreements, the purchaser Shri Debashish Sheel and Shri Abid Sayed has signed. It was the main submission of ld. AR of assessee that both these agreements were never executed and the amount of cash not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 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 buyers to the present assessee in cash but this is also true that these two agreements are although....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is not acceptable because it is clearly noted from the impounded material that the assessee company has agreed to sell 6,101 sft of the plot to one Mr. Debashish Sheel for an amount of Rs. 61,86,300/- and the assessee has also received a part consideration of Rs. 6 Lakhs in cash. This agreement regarding Site No. 19 of Smilee Anandavana Project and the second agreement of advance of Rs. 2 Lakhs is regarding Plot No. 24 of Smilee Anandavanam and as per details available on pages 29 and 30 of the paper book, these two sites being Site No. 24 of Smilee Ananda Vana project was sold for Rs. 1,09,10,735/- in Financial Year 2010-11 and Site No. 19, Smilee Ananda Vana was sold in Financial Year 2010-11 for a sum of Rs. 76,23,440/-. Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty u/s.271D of the Act. 5. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the amount received from Sri.Dinesh Ranka was under compelled circumstances and the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause and consequently the penalty as levied u/s.271D of the Act was opposed to law and liable to be deleted. 6. Without prejudice the levy of penalty as confirmed by the learned Commissioner (A) is excessive and arbitrary and liable to be deleted in toto. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed." 6. Various arguments were made by ld. AR of assessee and main argument was this that section 273B is applicable because reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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....