TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,36,000/- levied U/s 271D of the IT Act, 1961 for accepting alleged cash deposit of equivalent amount in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act. 2. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the penalty order and delete the relevant demand." Grounds of ITA 204/JP/2018 "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,36,000/- levied U/s 271E of the IT Act, 1961 for making alleged cash payment of deposit of equivalent amount in contravention of Section 269T of the Act. 2. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee who deposited in the bank account of the assessee for making the D.D. in favour of the Excise Department for participating in the tenders of the liquor shop. When he did not succeed in the tender, the D.D. were got cancelled and the amount was refunded to the friend. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention of the assessee for want of any documentary evidence and accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty U/s 271D and 271E of the Act. 3. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee vide its letter filed before the Assessing Officer explained the source of cash deposit and also filed the affidavit of Shri Shreeram, S/o- Shri Richpal Singh, who has accepted that the amount was deposited by him in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS ad 269T of the Act as provided U/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he has submitted that the penalty levied U/s 271D and 271E of the Act be deleted. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers Vs CIT 169 Taxman 158 (Jharkhand) as well as the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) 133 Taxman 426 (Gau). The ld AR has also relied upon the decision of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal dated 18/02/2015 in the case of Chemfert Traders (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 1(1) in ITA Nos. 720 & 721/Mum/2011. Hence, the ld AR has pleaded that the penalty levied U/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned and further an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was out of past savings of the father of the assessee and the remaining amount was explained to the extent of Rs. 3,36,000/- as the cash deposited by one Shri Shreeram, S/o- Shri Richpal Singh for making the D.D. in favour of the Excise Department for participating in tender of liquor shop. The Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the assessee and did not make any addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. The order of the Assessing Officer passed U/s 143(3) of the Act is completely silent about the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the source of cash deposits explained by the assessee. Thus, once the Assessing Officer has not ....