TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from the order of penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 29/11/2019 for the Assessment year (AY) 2015-16. In both these appeals, the assessee(s) has raised certain common grounds of appeal, facts in both these years are similar, except variation of figure of penalty under section 271D, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal in ITA No. 301/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16 is treated as a "lead case". In this appeal, the assessee has raised following ground of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment of Rs. 8,15,695/- as unexplained investment and made addition under Section 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made another addition of Rs. 1,62,437/- under Section 69C on account of cash payment made for converting the land into old tenure from new tenure and paid premium of Rs. 25,34,090/-. The assessee was having 6.67% share in the property, therefore, 6.67% share which were about Rs. 1,62,437/- was treated as payment from unexplained source under Section 69C of the Act, which is not the subject matter of these appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rother instead of gift. The Add. CIT levied penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The assessee also explained that taking temporary accommodation from family members, does not amount to transaction of loan or deposit to attract the penal consequences of Section 269SS of the Act. To support such view, the assessee relied on the following case laws before ld CIT(A). (i) CIT Vs Sainy Medical Store 277 ITR 420 (P&H) (ii) Dr. Deepak Muchhala Vs ITO 58 TTJ 524 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs Maa Khodiyar Construction 45 taxmann.com 566 (Guj) (iv) Veer Sales Corporation Vs ACIT 50 TTJ 130 (Ahd.) (v) Shreenath Builders Vs DCIT (2000) 111 Taxman 142 (Ahd.) (vi) CIT Vs Sree Krishna Promoters & Builders (2011)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Mills (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC), wherein such condition is laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not raised such legal grounds and non-recording of such satisfaction in the assessment order, about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D is a curable defect. The assessee has not disclosed as to what prejudice is caused to the assessee. The fact remains that the assessee has violated the statutory provisions of Section 269SS in accepting loan or deposit otherwise than account payee cheques or banker cheque or electronic clearing system of more than rupee twenty thousand which attracts the penalty of equal amount under section 271D. 9. I have considered the rival submi....