TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 13 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order issued u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to law, facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ositor), any loan or deposit or any specified Sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed. 6. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing the penalty order u/s 271D of the Act without satisfying the basic precondition of Section 269SS of the Act i.e., the provisions would arise only if there exists a loan or deposit within the meaning of the said provisions. It is legally incorrect to tax the cash received by the Appellant company though it fails to meet the basic precondition of Section 269SS of the Act. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') on 26.12.2019 by accepting the returned loss. Further, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s.271D of the Act by the competent authority for cash received by assessee amounting to Rs. 1,02,41,780/- and levied equal amount of penalty u/s.271D of the Act by passing an order dated 25.03.2022. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4.1 Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the amount received in cash by the assessee from M/s.Aanjaneya Energy Ltd. during the impugned assessment year is not a loan or deposit but it is a refund of trade advance, which was given by the assessee in earlier years, by way of cheque. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he penalty order of NFAC and also the Ld.CIT(A) is in accordance with the provisions of section 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act and hence, the same may please be confirmed. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record, all the paper books and gone through orders of the authorities below along with the judicial decisions relied on. Admittedly, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the order was passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has received cash of Rs. 1,02,41,780/- and reduced the same amount from loans and advances in the audited financials as on 31.03.2017. Therefore, the competent authority had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.27....