TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal. (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 5,03,15,487/-levied under section 271D of the Income tax Act 1961 on the ground that genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries is not in doubt. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) having held that assessee had contravened the provision of section 269SS of the Income tax Act 1961, ought to have upheld the levy of penalty under section 271D as the assessee failed to establish the compelling reason or genuine business constraint or reasonable cause for having connection in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disclosure is made 1 2010-11 487 lacs Undisclosed cash receipt on sale of car parking 2 2011-12 47.52 lacs Undisclosed cash receipt on sale of car parking Total 535 lacs Accordingly notices u/s 153C dated 27.09.2012 were issued and served upon the assessee requiring assessee to furnish returns of income for the various assessment years including A.Y. under consideration. In compliance of notice, the assessee furnished the return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 5,32,73,099/- after claiming the deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 59,19,233/-. The assessee accepted to repay the loan in contravention of provision 269SS/269T of the I.T. Act. The total ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate stage. The learned AR of the assessee further submits that the journal entries were made prior to 12 June 2012 as the present appeal pertains to assessment year 2012-13, therefore, the ratio of decision in case title as CIT Vs Trump International (I) Ltd dated 12 June 2012 (345 ITR 270)/ [22 Taxmann.com 138(Bom)] is not applicable. The ACIT levied the penalty under section 271D on the observation that the assessee accepted loan/ deposits from sister concern through journal entries i.e. otherwise then account payee cheque/draft and thereby violated the provisions of section 269SS. The assessee has taken journal entries of Rs. 10,99,595/-from Dharamnath Buildtech & Farm Pvt Ltd. The assessing officer further held that the assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved that there is no finding that transaction by way of journal entries were not made to evade tax. The finding of the CIT(A) is based upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the assessee's sister concern case title as CIT Vs AjinathHitech builders Private Limited& others in ITA's No. 171, 172, 202, 2.3, 218 and 219 of 2015 dated 06th February 2018. The ratio of other judgments relied by the assessee is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The assessee relied upon the other judgments such as CIT versus Aasthavinayak Estate Company Ltd ( ITA No. 602/M/ 2017 dated 31 May 2018 and CIT Vs National Standard India Ltd ( ITA No. 6607/M/2016 and 6609/M/2016 dated 6th June 2018. Further, it also came into notice....