TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....however the crux of the issue is that:- "The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had levied penalty of Rs. 15,77,500/- invoking the provisions of section 271D of the Act instead of appreciating the reasonable cause for having received cash loans from its Managing Director and granting relief to the assessee as per provision 273B of the Act." 3. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before us that there is a delay of 435 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the affidavit is extracted he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y engaged in the business of executing Civil Contract Works filed its return on 30/09/2012 and the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 16/3/2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Ld. AO that the assessee company has received cash loans exceeding Rs. 20,000/- from Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Managing Director of the Company. On query, the assessee had explained that the transaction between the assessee and its Managing Director cannot be treated as loan transaction because it is in the nature of current account. The assessee had further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Idhayam Publications Private Limited reported in 285 ITR 221 wherein the High Court obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or advance, there is no violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. We find no error in the order of the Trib the same requires no interference. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court......" 6. However, the Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Hyderabad was of the view that the assessee's case is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s. 271D of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- "During the appeal proceedings the appellant was also asked to submit bank account of Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, MD of the Company. In response, the appellant submitted MDs bank account with State Bank of India and with Punjab National Bank for AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were also made for attending to the medical emergencies of certain labourers who met with accidents on the work site. It was further submitted that the amount paid by the Managing Director was out of the amount received by him from the sale of scrap of the assessee-company. It was therefore argued that the transaction cannot be considered as loan received from the assessee Companie's Managing Director. The Ld. AR further relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163/183 Taxmann 53 (Punj. Har.) (ii) CIT vs. Maheswari Nirman Udyog [2008] 302 ITR 201/170 Taxman 502 (Raj.) (iii) CIT vs. Lakshmi Trust Co [2008] 303 ITR 99 (Mad.) 8. The Ld. DR on the other vehemently argued in s....