TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd as well as CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the same. 2.1 The Appellant has received rupees 18,50,000/ - Rupees Eighteen Lakhs fifty thousand cash against sale of flat and Rs. 6,00,000/- amount raised from Lenders which amount was less than Rupees twenty thousand out of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees four lakhs seventy five thousand is already taxed as income and balance Loans are accepted as genuine and each Loans less than Rs. 20,000/- considering above facts and circumstances no penalty u/s 271D can be levied and same be deleted. 2.2 The Joint CIT 27(1) as well as CIT(A) NFAC has taken stand contrary to the finding in the Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 order dated 22nd March, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty. The assessee was called to explain the sources of cash deposits in the F.Y 2007-08. Whereas the AO found that the assessee has purchased a flat as per agreement dated 31.05.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 30,42,00 0/- and Subsequently the deal was cancelled and the property was sold to Shri M Kishore Patel for Rs. 30,50,000/- and the assessee was called to explain the sources of purchase. Whereas the AO has dealt on the facts with respect to business income and the explanations of the cash deposits. The A.O found that the assessee has made cash deposits in the bank out of the loans received from friends and relatives, cash withdrawals with other banks. Since the assessee could not substantiate with the clear facts and sources of cash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d has levied penalty of Rs. 24,50,000/- and passed the order u/sec 271D of the Act dated 07.07.2016. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO and sustained the penalty and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/sec 271D of the Act overlooking the facts and findings that, the assessee has entered into agreement for purchase of flat and since the deal could not go through due to non compliance of financial transactions and the agreement of sale was reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration payable to the builder and remaining amount to be paid in installments as referred at Para 3 internal page 7 of the agreement (at page 100 of paper book). Whereas the assessee has made the payment of Rs. 1 lakh out of his salary income and business income and the amount was paid on 17.05.2007 from his bank account. Further the Ld. AR submitted that due to circumstances beyond the control, the assessee could not purchase the property and has sold the property to Mr. Kishore M Patel as per the agreement of sale registered on 06.12.2007 placed at page 34 to 43 of the paper book. The assessee has sold the property as per the registered agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs. 30,50,000/- and received the sale consideration in cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axmi Rice Mills Ambala City, [2015] 379 ITR 521 2. Cit Vs. Madhukar B. Pawar Bombay HC, [2008] 218 CTR 59. 3. Gopal Sarkar Vs. ACIT, 21 taxmann.com 132 Kal 4. DIT(E) Vs. Young Men Christian Association, 49 taxmann.com 172. 5. ITO Vs. Smt Gurmeet Kaur, 27 taxmann.com 173 Jodhpur 6. CIT Vs. Shyam Corporation, 218 Taxmann 136 Gujrat HC 7. CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd, [2006] 155 taxmann 383 Delhi HC 8. CIT Vs. Kailash Chandra Deepak Kumar, [2009] 317 ITR 351 Allahabad HC 9. CIT Vs. Khartri Lal & Co. [2005] 144 Taxmann 178 (P & H HC) 10. Pankaj Investment Vs. ACIT, 46 ITR (T) 345 Mumbai. 11. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2002] 80 ITD 484 12. Karnataka Ginning & Pressing factors Vs. JCIT, [2001] 77 ITD....