AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is delayed by 24 days in filing the appeal and filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of verification conducted by the DIT(I&CI), Chennai, it was found that the assessee sold an immovable property vide document No. 19206/2016 of SRO Virugambakkam dated 27.04.2016 and part of the sale consideration (Rs..1,60,00,000/-) was received in cash. On receipt of the above information, since the above transaction was in violation of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on by the ld. counsel has no application to the facts of the present case in the absence of any cogent material evidence furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal and pleaded for confirming the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. As per the registered deed of sale, since the assessee sold an immovable property and received part consideration in cash of Rs..1,60,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act. As the assessee has received part consideration in cash, which is in violation of the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. 6.1 The written submissions filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: I herewith submit the following in response to the Written Submission of the O/o. CIT DR (ITAT), dated 30.01.20024: 1. A copy of the Audited Balance Sheet of M/s. Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd. for the FY 2013-14 along with the Schedule of "Other Current Liabilities" was submitted since it reflects the loan taken from Mr. Chukkapalli Srinivasa Prasad and statements for FY 2013-14 were submitted only to prove the year of loan taken by the group company M/s. Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd. and copies of the bank statements were submitted to prove that the loan was received through Bank. In this regard we have also submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the uncle of Mr.Chukkapalli Srinivasa Prasad on the direction of Mr.Chukkapalli Srinivasa Prasad. 5. The property was not purchased by Mr. Chukkapalli Srinivasa Prasad since an amount of Rs. 1,46,99,384/- was to be paid to the bank to clear the Housing Loan taken by the appellant and hence, he requested his uncle Mr.Chukkapali Venu to settle the Housing Loan and get the property transferred in to his name. Hence, it is very clear that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 3,10,00,000/- an amount of Rs. 1,46,99,384/- was paid directly for the closure of the Housing Loan by Mr.Chukkapali Venu and Rs. 1,60,00,000/- was adjusted against the Loan taken from Mr. Chukkapalli Srinivasa Prasad. However, in the sale deed prepared by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der justice. 6.2 Be that as it may, whatsoever details mentioned in the written submissions of the assessee viz., confirmation letter or audited balance sheet of M/s. Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd., or the application of case law relied upon, but, last line in para 5 of the written submissions, the assessee has mentioned that the "appellant inadvertently did not notice the mention of 1.60 crores paid in cash and proceeded to register the sale deed". In the grounds of appeal before the ITAT, the assessee has raised a ground viz., "3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the 'Consideration Clause' of the deed of sale had wrongly entered the transaction in mode of cash while in reality it is an adjustment of an....