2022 (7) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d order, the ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal filed against an order dated 1st February 2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleting the penalty of Rs.1.7crores levied on the Respondent-Assessee by the Additional CIT under Section 271 D read with Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. The Assessing Officer reported the matter to the Additional CIT who the order dated 29th September 2016 levied the above penalty under Section 271 D of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had accepted the loans of 1.5crores in cash from M/s Laxmi Nrushingha Construction and Rs.20lakhs in cash from M/s S.S. Parida during the AY in question in violation of the provision of Section 269 SS of the Act. 3. The reason g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Parida as the managing director of the assessee company and the main partner of the two sister concerns was the person who was handling cash for all the 3 entities. (iii) The amounts were taken in cash from the two sister concerns for making labour payments at far off places and there was an urgency to do so. (iv) There was business expediency which compelled the assessee to accept the amount in cash. (v) Sri S.S. Parida was not aware of the provisions of section 269SS." 6. Accordingly, the CIT (A) allowed the Assessee's appeal and deleted the penalty imposed. 7. The ITAT has in the impugned order concurred with the CIT (A) after referring to the decisions of the Jharkhand High Court in Engineers v. CIT 294 ....