2022 (12) TMI 1361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 08.02.2022. 2. Assessee has raised six grounds in the present appeal, all of which relate to challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,04,000/- u/s. 271DA of the Act on account of deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee, directly by the party, at a different location. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: "1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the Joint Commissioner levying penalty of Rs.2,04,000/- u/s 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with Union Bank of India, Camac Street Branch, Kolkata bearing A/c No. 401601010519286. The Auditor during the course of audit process found that M/s Choudhary Poultry Feed Centre had deposited an amount of Rs.2,04,000/- in cash on 04.07.2018 which contravenes the provisions of Sec.269ST of the Act and reported the same in column No.31 of the Tax Audit Report. 3.1. Based upon the information provided in the Tax Audit Report, the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice u/s. 271DA of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed for such contravention of provisions of Sec.269ST. The assessee upon receipt of the show cause notice submitted a reply extracts of which are as under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. He did not accept the assessee 's contention that the client could have deposited the cash directly into the account of the assessee. He ignored the basic submission that the deposit of cash has been made directly into the account of the assessee. 3.3. Being aggrieved with the action of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel reiterated the above facts and contentions to submit that penalty imposed is to be deleted. He also strongly submitted by referring to the audited financial statement for the FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 to point out that revenue from operations of the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the provisions of section 269ST, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of such receipt. Provided that no penalty shall be imposable if such person proves that there were good and sufficient reasons for the contravention. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner." 4.1. Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. AO. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and from the perusal of material placed on record, we find that there exists a good and sufficient reason in terms of proviso to section 271DA for deleting the penalty of Rs.2,04,000/- impose d by the Ld. AO. The facts demonstrated before us are uncontroverted which makes us incline to....