TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-11 to 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised five grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: Grounds of appeal for the AY: 2010-11: (1) The order of the Ld CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. (2) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 271D are applicable to the facts of the case. (3) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied of Rs. 4,00,000/- U/s. 271D of the Act. (4) The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have seen that the AO did not record the satisfaction note at the time of completion of assessment. (5) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." Grounds of appeal for the AY: 2011-12: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act, 1961 are applicable to the facts of the case. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner of Law, Range-16 in applying the provisions U/s. 269SS & 269T of the Act without considering the submission of the appellant. (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty U/s 271E of the Act for Rs. 52,37,000/- without considering the submission of the appellant. (5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AO erred in not giving opportunity to the appellant.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 18,03,000/-and Rs. 1,01,24,500/- respectively. It was further revealed that during the previous year relevant to the AY 2011-12 the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269T of the Act as it has repaid the loan by way of cash in excess of the prescribed limits aggregating to Rs. 52,37,000/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO invoked the penal provisions of section 271D and 271E of the Act and levied penalty equal to the amount of loan taken in cash and the amount of loan repaid in cash. While doing so, the Ld. AO relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director of Investigation vs. Kumari A.B. Shanti reported in 255 ITR 258 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the Constitutio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the penalty imposed on the assessee U/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The Ld. DR on the other hand argued in support of the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and requested for confirming the same. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR, We, find some merit in the same. If all the relevant entities are sister concerns arising out of the same ownership, it cannot be firmly said that the funds are transferred to or received from different entities though they are treated as different entities by Statute. For holding so we draw strength from the Orders of the Hon'ble High Courts cited by the Ld.AR hereinabove. However, it is also a fact that i....