2018 (9) TMI 2159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1E of Rs. 17,31,403 while there was 'reasonable cause' u/s 273B to repay the alleged 'hire purchase installment' in cash and the assessee having a 'bona fide belief' that such payments would not come within the mischief of sec.269T." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of civil construction which includes road construction and building work. It filed its return of income on 27.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 26,15,450/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 24.02.2014 determining the total income at Rs. 34,54,183/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bserving as under :- "On going through Sec. 269T, I find that the section does not differentiate cash payment to a hire purchase company from cash payment to other persons. It is not denied that the appellant had availed loan from M/s Magma Fin Corporate Ltd. (SOIL and COM) and four other companies as listed as page-1 of the penalty order and these loans have been repaid in cash on various dates as listed in subsequent paras of the penalty order. There are certain entities prescribed in the said section payment to which is exempt from the purview of the section. The recipients are not the undertaking/bodies specified in the 2nd proviso to Sec. 269T the payment to which is exempt from the said section. Therefore, the appellant has violated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any amount. Referring to various other decisions filed in the Paper Book, he submitted that under somewhat identical circumstances penalty levied u/s 271E has been deleted. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the assessee in the instant case has violated the provisions of section 269T by repaying the loan in cash where such amount in each case is more than Rs. 20,000/-. Since the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269T, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. ....