TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order. 2. The grounds of appeal are reproduced as under :- ITA No.47/Ahd/2023 by the Revenue "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to Rs. 3,05,953/- as against penalty of Rs. 1,31,79,630/- levied by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the additions, which form the basis of the penalty have been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT without appreciating the facts that department has filed an appeal u/s.260A of the I.T. Act against the order of the Hon'ble ITAT before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Corut and which is still pending. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent." ITA No.192/Ahd/2023 by the Revenue "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty of Rs. 6,83,67,678/- levied under Section 271D of the Act to Rs. 5,96,11,178/- despite th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The CIT(A) has also not considered the legality of the case and disposed the appeal by dismissing appeal which is not reasonable. 3. As the penalties imposed were void, illegal or inoperative since inception of the proceedings as the AO himself could not produce any cogent evidence in support of his stand rather merely relied upon presumptions and such arbitrary additions and penalties are not legitimate in the eyes of law." 3. Firstly, we are taking up the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.47/Ahd/2023. The return of income was filed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.10.2015 declaring total loss of Rs. (-) 73,18,039/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.04.2016 and duly served upon the assessee. The Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was finalised on 27.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs. 16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounted cash receipt have granted relief to the extent of Rs. 3,89,31,306/- and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,40,140/-. The Tribunal's finding vide order dated 13.01.2022 clearly reveals that the assessee has disclosed all the relevant material before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the element of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income will not arise in the present scenario. In respect of disallowance of interest incurred on unsecured loan, the assessee has not prayed this ground and, therefore, the addition was sustained. Thus, this cannot be stated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly granted partial relief to the assessee and there is no need to interfere with the same. Appeal being ITA No.47/Ahd/2023 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to ITA No.108/Ahd/2023 filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act as the assessee has grossly failed to prove that there was any reasonable cause to accept deposits otherwise than through Bank Draft or thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 30% and thus it cannot be treated as loan or deposit and will not attract Section 269SS as well as Section 269T of the Act. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. In respect of penalty under Section 271D amounting to Rs. 6,83,67,678/-, the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs. 5,96,11,178/-. The CIT(A) while passing the order has taken conclusion that the Directors of the Company Preet Patel and Pravin Patel given cash loans in order to enable the Company to incur various expenses including the investment in land. Other than loan, the CIT(A) reluctantly objected that there can be no other treatment of such amounts given. Similarly, the CIT(A) held that Ghanshyam Gandhi also gave loan of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- which is clearly mentioned in the seized documents and in fact the said amount was repaid with interest. This is in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act as per the observation of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) further pointed out that the cash transactions were undertaken not only to help the Directors to evade taxes but also to let the money given be utilised for purchase of land etc. to keep that transaction ....