TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under: - 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of providing television commercials, advertisements and programs, is incorporated on 31.02.2000. From the details on record it appears that the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271E and 271D of the Act for A.Y. 2000-01 by issue of show cause notice dated 31.10.2011 to the assessee calling for its explanation as to why penalty should not be levied thereunder for violation of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act for accepting and repaying loan of Rs. 1,45,000/- in cash from Shri Abhijit A Sheth, Director of the company. The submission by the assessee that no such penalty can be levied as no such penalty proceedings had be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds: - 3.2.1 ITA No. 5688/Mum/2013 - Penalty under section 271E - Rs. 1,50.000/- The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: - "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT (A)] has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer of levying penalty of Rs. 1,45,000/- u/s 271 E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax officer in invoking penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2000- 01 after 9 years from date of passing the original order by the then Ld. Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mum/2013 - Penalty under section 271D - Rs. 1,45,000/- The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: - "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT (A)] has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer of levying penalty of Rs. 1,45,000/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax officer in invoking penalty proceedings for A.Y. 2000- 01 after 9 years from date of passing the original order by the then Ld. Assessing Officer. Thus, the action is unjustif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty and justice, the additional grounds raised are to be admitted for consideration and adjudication and accordingly admit the same. 4.1.1 We have heard the learned A.R. for the assessee in support of the grounds/additional grounds raised and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the details filed by the assessee and the judicial decisions cited. 4.1.2 Admittedly as per the averments, views and findings rendered by the authorities below, no satisfaction has been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings in the orders of assessment, if any, passed for A.Y. 2000-01. According to the learned A.R. for the assessee, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills report....