TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty u/s 271E 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 A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed, the person has been identified and there is no attempt to camouflage or siphon off 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 2008-09 and 2009-10 and although similar payments were made in cash, however, no penalty proceedings u/s 271E were initiated for violation of provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act. Further, the payees are identifiable persons and the genuineness of the payment is not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there was a bona-fide belief on the part of the assessee that the repayment of hire purchase installment would not come within the mischief of section 269T of the I.T. Act. There is no allegation by the Revenue Authorities that such payments were made to the above persons with a view to evade tax. Since the genuineness of the payments are not doubted and there is no allega....