TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from time to time and has not raised any objections against the notices issued in the name of the deceased assessee. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Sec.27IE of the Act by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vikram Singh Vs. Union of India (401 ITR 302) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Rajender Kumar Singhal Vs. ITO (101 Taxmann.com 233), without appreciating the fact that in those cases the legal heirs of the deceased-assessees have filed objections during the course of proceedings against the issue of notice in the name of the deceased person whereas in the case under consideration the legal heir of the assessee has not raised any objection as regards the issue of notice in the name of the deceased person and further complied with the notices issued during the course of penalty proceedings. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Sec.27IE of the Act without considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T Harplani alias Asharam Bapu and his associates in past years. The assessee has repaid a loan of Rs. 1.00 crore on 08/03/2011 i.e. during the relevant assessment year. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) after receipt of reference from Assessing Officer/DCIT on 22/02/2018, issued show cause notice to the assessee on 05/03/2018 as to why penalty under section 271E be not levied on the assessee. In response to show cause notice, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed his reply dated 29/08/2018. In the reply, the assessee stated that no addition is made in the assessment against the alleged repayment of loan in contravention of section 269S. No existence of loan has been found. The noting relating to repayment of Rs. 1.00 crore is found from the Asharam and there is no signature of assessee. No statement of assessee was recorded regarding such repayment. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the ld. JCIT. The ld. JCIT held that the name of assessee appeared in the master ledger of assessee and balance was receivables Rs. 5.00 crores. The relevant portion of master ledger is scanned in para 7 of penalty order. On the basis of which, the ld. JC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer also made protective addition of Rs. 15,17,100/- under Section 69A in respect of cash found from the residence of assessee. Both the additions were deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 07/10/2019 by holding that the amount of Rs. 5.00 crores were received by HUF of assesse and HUF earned Rs. 56.45 lacs as business income and Rs. 1.40 crore as interest income for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 which is already offered by HUF in Income Discloser Scheme-2016 (IDS-16) as a net income of Rs. 2.00 crores which is accepted by PCIT-1, Surat, thus, there is no question of making any addition in the individual hand of assessee. Copy of order of ld. CIT(A) dated 07/10/2019 was also filed. Copy of Form-4 issued by ld. PCIT in case of HUF of deceased assessee, accepting disclosure of income of Rs. 2.00 crore was also filed. On the basis of such fact, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that from the above facts, it is clear that the alleged transaction of repayment of Rs. 1.00 crore in this year and subsequent acceptance of Rs. 5.00 crores from Ashram of Asharam Bapu pertains of HUF of assessee and not of assessee in his individual capacity and there is no question of levy of pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee relied upon the following case laws: (i) Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja Vs ITO (2020) 117 taxmann.com 504 (Guj) (ii) PCIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) (iii) CIT Vs S. Gowri 116 taxmann.com 764 (Mad.) (iv) Srikishan Agarwal Vs DCIT 88 taxmann.com 380 (Jai Trib). In alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that even on merit, no penalty was leviable against the assessee as the alleged transaction was not related to individual assessee rather relates to HUF of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of fact, deleted the penalty on merit as well. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue has no force and the appeal of revenue is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below carefully. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of Section 269T of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty under Section 271E of the Act by taking a view that the assessee has taken cash loan from Asharam Bap....