2013 (8) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....71D 2. The facts apropos this appeal are that the Assessing Officer observed during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee had taken following loans exceeding the limits specified in section 269SS otherwise than by account payee cheques or bank drafts. (i) M/s.Nakshatra Software Pvt.Ltd. Rs. 27,38,038 (ii) M/s.Goldfish Computer Pvt.Ltd. Rs. 13,21,167 (iii) M/s.Narbharam Harakhchand Rs. 46,000   -------------- Rs. 41,05,205 =========   3. On being called upon to explain as to why the penalty should not be imposed u/s 271D for violation of provisions of section 269SS in respect of these three loans, the assessee stated that M/s.Nakshatra Software Private Limited paid ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., as the case may be. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd., (one of the group concerns of the assessee). Vide judgment dated 12th June, 2012 the Hon'ble High Court in CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. [(2012) 345 ITR 270 (Bom.)], has held : "that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that repayment of loan / deposit through journal entries did not violate the provisions of section 269T of the Act". However considering the reasonable cause in that case, the Hon'ble High Court deleted the penalty. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that there can be no deletion of penalty if simply there is a receipt of l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rated by the assessee in such fresh proceedings. ITA No.6082/Mum/2009 : Penalty u/s 271E 6. This appeal is against the confirmation of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Here also the assessee contended that the loans were repaid by way of journal entries and hence section 271E could not have been imposed. This contention raised before the authorities below did not find favour with the authorities who imposed and sustained the present penalty. 7. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that here again the assessee argued before the learned CIT(A) as well as the A.O. that since the transactions were routed through journal entries no penalty should be imposed. In view of the afore-noted....