TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. Therefore, we heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was a search under Section 132 of the Act in the case of one Shri A.N. Radhakrishnan, who is a trustee in M/s Meenakshi Ammal Trust and Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust. According to the Ld. counsel, the search was conducted on 10.10.2008. Based upon the material found during the course of search operation at the resident of Shri A.N. Radhakrishnan, an assessment was completed under Section 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee for assessment yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2009-10. Therefore, there was a delay of almost six years. According to the Ld. counsel, even though no limitation was prescribed for initiating proceeding under Section 271D of the Act, it should be initiated within a reasonable time and at any stretch of imagination, a period of six years cannot be construed as reasonable period for initiating proceeding under Section 271D of the Act. Therefore, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, according to the Ld. counsel, the penalty proceeding was barred by limitation. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Srinivasa Rao v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 136 and submitted that the Madras High Court found that though time limit was not prescribed under Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Educational Trust. According to the Ld. counsel, the deposit from the students comes to nearly Rs.15000/- per student. This was deposited by the Head of the insitutitions on behalf of students. The deposits were made at the late hours of the day and on weekends since the students are coming from outskirts of Chennai. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee was forced to accept the deposit in cash. Moreover, wherever the Trust was depositing, it was only entered in the books of account and there was no physical cash deposit. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221, the Ld.counsel submitted that what was received by the assessee from the students and from the Trust on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount at all. Therefore, it could have transferred the amount by means of cheques or other known method. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., there is no reason for deposit of cash with the assessee-company. Hence, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271D of the Act. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In some cases, the assessee has received cash exceeding Rs.20,000/- from the Trust. The Trust appears to have given a list of students from whom the money was collected. The claim of the assesseecompany is that the students are coming from outskirts of Chennai on weekends, therefore, the Trust has to ....