TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred in law and on facts in levying the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act, 1961 and Ld CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad has further erred in confirming the same without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2.Both the above authorities have erred in overlooking the submission rr.ade before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings, explaining the reasons and purpose for which cash loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- was received from Shri Hasmukhbhai Patel and paid back though account pay cheque. 3. Both the above authorities have erred in overlooking the assessment order where A.O. is fully satisfied as to the reason for obtaining cash loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- in contravention of section 269SS of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- on 05/09/2014. 6. During the re-assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the appellant has maintained bank accounts with Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India. 7. In response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 regarding source of cash deposit into the bank, the appellant explained the sources of cash deposit into the bank out of cash withdrawal from other bank accounts and money arranged from friends and relatives. 8. The appellant also explained the purpose of withdrawal of cash from other banks and redeposit of the said cash into bank as he has to show the bank balance in his bank account for obtaining student visa for study in foreign country. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action of the Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard both the parties and gone through the impugned order. In this case, ld. A.O. initiated the penalty proceeding in assessment order u/s.271(1)(c) but ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s. 271D. 16. In support of its contention, ld. A.R. cited an order of ITAT Delhi order wherein in similar facts and circumstances matter was decided in favour of the assessee and revenue's appeal was dismissed with following observations: 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the A.O. in the assessment order noted that assessee was asked to explain source of the cash deposit in her bank account maintained with State Bank of India. The assessee attended the proceedings before A.O. and filed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sutong from Shillong Branch over which the assessee had no control. Rather by taking instant action, the assessee has refunded back the impugned cash on the same day which goes to prove the bonafide of the assessee and completely rules out any foul play on assessee's part. The A.O. has not offered any comments on the same. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that impugned cash was never used by assessee as out of Rs. 16 lakhs, the assessee has returned back Rs. 14 lakhs on the same day, whereas another Rs. 1 lakh was refunded merely after two days.Therefore, penalty to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs was cancelled. The penalty for Rs. 80,000 was confirmed. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner (Appeals) by order dated December 5, 1996, set aside the assessment order with a direction to frame the -assessment de novo after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Meanwhile penalty under section 271D was levied by order dated September 23, 1996, i.e., before the appeal of the assessee against the original assessment order was heard and allowed thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed on the basis of the original assessment order coul....