TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 for the assessment years 1995- 96 to 1997-98 respectively u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. As the facts are more or less identical, and as all the appeals have been heard together, we dispose them of by means of a consolidated order. 2. The solitary ground taken by the Revenue is regarding deletion of penalties levied u/s.271D and 271E as detailed below:- Sr. No. Asstt. Year. Penalty levied Section. 1. 1995-96 67,62,971/- 271D 2. 1996-97 67,40,050/- 271D 3. 1997-98 89,22,700/- 271D 4. 1996-97 3,03,500/- 271E 5. 1997-98 1,44,77,250/- 271E 3. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure action had taken place at the assessee's premises on 21-1-1997. The search action revealed that the group entities were no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act was completed on 31-12-2007. 4. During the course of block assessment proceedings, on going through the Special Audit Report u/s. 142(2A), it was observed by Assessing Officer (A.O.) that the assessee had accepted loan in excess of ₹ 10,000/- and he concluded that assessee has violated provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act. It was also alleged that assessee had repaid loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269T. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s. 271D/271E were initiated. 5. Before the A.O. during the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee stated that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction of small dwelling units. The money received from all the persons referred is towards "booking adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill the time deposits are not transferred to the sales account, the nature of deposits are in the nature of deposits only and such deposits fall under the ambit of 269SS/269T. He further held that the facts of the assessee's case are different from those relied upon by it and therefore the ratio of those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. 8. The submissions made by the assessee were thus discarded. The A.O. thus concluded that the assessee had violated provisions of section 269SS and accordingly levied penalties vide orders dated 29-9-2008. 9. Against the levy of penalty by A.O. the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). CIT(A) vide order dated 15-9-2009 deleted the penalty for the reason that the deposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same cannot be considered as deposit/loan in violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- 1) Girish Mishra vs. ACIT (2004) 91 TTJ (All) 643 2) CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 295 (Del) 3) Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR (Del) 571 4) DCIT vs. G S Entertainment (2007) 109 TTJ (Mum.) 54. We have considered submissions of the Ld D.R. and written submissions filed by the assessee and have also perused the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT (A). It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is in the business of construction of houses. It has received advance money. The booking advance as per No.2 books have already been treated as "Deemed Sales" and considered as Income. The ....