2017 (1) TMI 1820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....244/- and u/s. 271E of Rs.2,95,500/-, is wrong, arbitrary, illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Since the facts involved in both the appeals are common, hence, for the sake of convenience, the same are being disposed off together by this consolidated order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the scrutiny proceedings of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee company had received cash of Rs.6,29,000/- from Anwar Jalil Ahmed Khan, Rs. 7,30,000/- from Sofia Praveen Khan, both directors of the assessee-company and Rs.27,244/- from M/s. Softech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. On being apprised of the fact by the Assessing Officer, the assessee at first instance tried to mislead the AO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same in cash in violation of section 269T of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.13,86,244/- u/s. 271D and Rs.2,95,500/- u/s. 271E of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the penalty orders and the submissions of the assessee, confirmed the penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee contended that the amount was deposited by Mrs. Sofia Praveen Khan only of Rs.7,30,000/- and not Rs.13,86,244/-. This amount was received as share application money for issue of share capital in the company. She is a NRI and had agricultural income which is not taxable in India. When the Board of Directors rejected the offer for purchase of shares of the company....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o hidden the actual cash payments received and paid in violation of section 269SS and 269T in its tax audit report. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and we find that the assessee has taken diverse stands at different points of time. In the assessment proceedings, initially the assessee stated that no cash payment has been received. In the penalty proceedings, it was stated that cash payment was received as share application money and was repaid to Sofia Praveen Khan on rejection of the offer by the Board of Directors. The appellant could not bring any evidence on record to support his claim regarding the amount received from Sofia Praveen Khan towards share applicat....