TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly upheld the addition made u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. That the Learned C.I.T (Appeals) has wrongly upheld penalty amounting to Rs. 2,75,688/- u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of Rs. 8,92,193/- on account of disallowance under section 40A(3). 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly ignored the fact that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued by the learned assessing officer was defective / invalid. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing." 2. The ld. AR inviting attention to the record submitted that the order passed is unsustainable in law. 2.1 The notice issued by the AO was stated to be vague and non-specific. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n ITA Nos. 161&162/RPR/2018 Vikash Nashine Vs DCIT rendered by the Raipur Bench of the ITAT. Accordingly, in the light of the position of law as considered by the decisions of the Courts it was his prayer that setting aside the impugned order, Penalty order may be quashed. 3. Proceeding to address the issues on merits, it was his submission that even on merits, the penalty has been wrongly invoked. It was his submission that all along the assessee has given an explanation that the assessee was engaged in the business of sand mine and is running crushers etc. It was his submission that the crushers are invariably functioning outside the city limits. In the facts of the present case, it was submitted that there were two types of payments m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on facts that the payments were made at the remote area where for urgent repair of machinery, the assessee cannot afford to wait. 4. On query, ld. AR submitted that this is the only year where such a penalty has been levied upon the assessee. The assessee, it was stated, is not a habitual offender. The payments made, it was submitted, were genuine payments for business and now the assessee has made arrangements to ensure that the payments made for breakdown etc. of machinery are also accepted through the Banking channel. 5. The ld. Sr. DR relies upon the impugned order. It was her submission that admittedly the present case is a case where the assessee has made payments in cash. The argument that the payments are genuine, it was her ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wable. The argument discarded that cash payments for addressing machinery breakdown etc. on a Sunday when the Banks were open as per the directions of the RBI, I find considering the background of the specific case where the assessee was functioning outside the city limits, the explanation offered cannot be outrightly discarded in the penalty proceedings. The urgent need to clear payments by an assessee functioning outside residential/commercial areas in the peculiar facts by itself, no doubt, may not have been a valid explanation as far as the quantum proceedings are concerned, however, considering the requirements of the penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, I find the explanation deserves to be allowed. The explanation on facts is....