TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 2013- 2014. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ''1. The orders of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 10, Chennai ('Learned AO') and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [CIT(A)'] are erroneous & bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act') to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. Ground 2 to 5 Levy of penalty under section 271E read with section 269T of the Act 2. That the CIT(A) and Learned AO have erred in holding the levy of penalty under section 271E read with 269T of the Act. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,02,200/- for closing the loan. The Learned Addl CIT has held that the Appellant has violated the provisions of section 269T of the Act by repaying loan by way of cash beyond the threshold of Rs. 20,000. Relying on the order of the Addl CIT, the Learned AO issued a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act dated 18th February 2020 thereby levying a penalty of Rs. 11,02,000/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and held as under: ''First being the intent of legislation where the appellant stated that the intention of the section does not apply as the loan was repaid in cash to the NBFC. In this regard, it is hereby stated that the language of the provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) 410 ITR 244 SC] ; d. No penalty where cash has been deposited into bank though it has been normally received in excess of threshold limits. The Appellant further added that in the instant case, repayment has been made to the Mahindra loan account which has been duly reported by the NBFC recipient. The Court has appreciated the fact that though loan has been obtained by way of cash, since the amount has been subsequently deposited into bank account, such amount has to be regarded as routed through banking channels. e. After referring the intent of the legislation for provisions of Section 269SS and 269T have been introduced in the year 1984, the ld.Counsel submitted that the intention of introducing this section is to cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 Copy of income tax return (ITR') for AY 2012-13 12 36 4 Copy of ITR for AY 2011-12 37 60 5 Extracts of Memorandum to Finance Act, 1984 61 68 6 Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) dated 9th March 2017 [RBI/2016- 17/245 DNBR (PD),CC.No. 086/03.10.001/2016-17] 69 69 Judicial precedents - Purposive interpretation to be adopted and where there is ambiguity in interpretation of law, the view in favour of the taxpayer needs to be considered 7 Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) 70 73 8 Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food (P)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT vs Sidhartha Enterprises [322 ITR 80] 164 164 166 The ld.Counsel for the assessee also submitted letter of the Reserve Bank of India (Pg 69 of P.B. Index supra) which reads as under:- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक RESERVE BANK OF INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RBI/2016-17/245 DNBR (PD) CC.No.086/03.10.001/2016-17 March 09, 2017 All NBFCs Madam/ Sir, ....