AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/- 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 claimed before the AO t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. Thereafter the assessee had approached the Tribunal and by order dated 10.01.2017 the Tribunal has disposed of the appeals collectively with following findings : "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 ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey in cash and repaid the same in cash. The AO noted in the assessment order at page No. 2 & 3 that the cash book submitted was not authentic and manipulated one. The Tax Auditor has also 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 rejectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half of the appellant do not render support to the appellant, as the appellant in the instant case has failed to explain any reasonable cause under which it received and repaid the loan in cash in violation of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in detail and has passed a reasoned order. We accordingly, find no justification to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A). As a result, both the appeals of the assessee deserve to be dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed." 6. However the assessee preferred Miscellaneous application no. 667 and 661/Del/2017 which were allowed on 03.12.2021 with following order :- "The order in this case has been pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a different consequence than one made by the Co-ordinate Bench earlier. 8. Ld. AR has submitted that out of bona fides and being unaware of the state of law with regard to extent to which cash amount can be transacted the two Directors who are NRI had given the cash loan which was also repaid. Ld. AR has relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. Stae of Orissa (supra) to submit that as the nature of proceedings are Quasi-criminal proceedings so it is required to ascertain if there was a deliberate act of defiance of the technical provisions. Ld. AR further relied the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) t....