TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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: (1) The order of the Ld CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. (2) The Ld. CIT (A) erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal 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. 3. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us that there is a delay of four days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which had occurred due to the ill health suffered by the Chairman & Managing Director of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Constitutional validity of the section 269SS of the Act held that the object of introducing section 269SS of the Act is to eradicate the evil practice of making false entries in books of accounts and later giving explanation for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 if the payments are made and received in cash by those entities it might give scope for manipulation of accounts, as explained in the Circular No. 387, dated 6th July, 1984 by the CBDT, and the same is observed in favour o....