2025 (6) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed at the instance of Revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 framed by CIT(A), Pune-12 arising out of penalty order passed u/s. 271D of the Act on 28.09.2022. 2. Sole grievance of the Revenue is that ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271D of the Act for violation of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. Respondent-assessee has been visited by penalty u/s. 271D of the Act for the alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act for the cash loan taken from Shri Radheshyam Agrawal/ Pankaj Radheshyam Agrawal. We find that against the quantum addition made u/s. 68 of the Act by AO which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merely acted on the basis of the statement given by the assessee before the police authorities and it is judicially settled that such statement given before the police authorities is not an admissible evidence in terms of provisions of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the other document which remains is cheques and documents alleged to be Hundi which are merely in the nature of collatera....
TaxTMI