2026 (4) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t"), the ITA 6682 pertains to a penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. ITA No.6681/Del/2025: In this case the AO has levied the impugned penalty on the ground that the assessee has taken cash loans amounting to Rs. 8.5 lakhs each from two persons. The Ld. AO has recorded a finding that the two loan givers were allegedly not having any bank account during the relevant financial year. This led the Ld. AO to conclude that the loans were taken in contravention of section 269SS of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that while the Ld. AO has recorded the dates of receipt of cheques from the two persons as 20.08.2016, 25.08.2016 and 30.10.2016; it was brought to notice that actually the year was not 2016 but 2008. 2.1 The assessee c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee had not carried out any business activity during the year but had still claimed this figure of loss. Furthermore, the Ld. AO has mentioned that the assessee had agreed to this loss being disallowed apparently to buy peace of mind. Thereafter, the Ld. AO held that it was a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thus, a penalty of Rs. 5,16,718/- was levied. 4.1 The aggrieved assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the basis of finding that the figure of loss was admitted as an inadmissible claim by the assessee only after the Ld. AO had pointed out that it was not admissible. Furthermore, it has also been held that the assessee could not seek immunity from penalty on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1(1)(c) of the Act (Paras 10 & 11 of this order were specifically referred to). 4.4 Per contra, the Ld. DR argued with the help of written submissions and read out from the same. The Ld. DR relied on the case of MAK Data Private Limited reported in 358 ITR 593 (SC). In light of this case law it was argued that merely because the assessee had chosen to surrender a particular amount before the AO then on that basis alone there could be no relief from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us. It is seen that in this case the audited accounts have clearly depicted the statement of affairs whereby against some income there is excess of expendi....