TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following grounds of appeal : "a) The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. b) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that Assessing Officer was wrong in levying penalty under section 271 E of an amount of Rs. 8,83,61,572.00, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. c) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the explanation given at the time assessment through their representative s detailed reply dated 10 October 2019. d) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the receipt of the appellant were not in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the chit company functioning under the principles of Doctrine of Mutuality. k) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the subscription received by the Chit Company from the Subscribers is not a deposit, loans or advances. The term 'deposit' is defined under Section 45 I(bb) of the RBI Act, 1934; l) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the 'Chit' Company would not attract the provisions of 269 T. Repayment of bidders' subscription is not in violation of section 269T in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. m) The Appellant seeks leave to add other grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd small business man, therefore, requested the Assessing Officer to drop the penalty proceedings. Considering the explanation of the appellant, the NFAC had proceeded with levy of penalty by holding that the appellant only explained the business activity, nature of business, nature of his customers without showing any reasonable cause for violation of provisions of section 269T of the Act, therefore, proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271E of the Act of Rs. 8,83,61,571/- vide order dated 13.09.2021. 4. Being aggrieved by the above penalty order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty placing reliance decision of the Hon'ble Madras high Court in the case of M.Sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctronic clearance system aggregating to Rs. 8,83,61,572/-. When the appellant was called upon the explain as to why an order imposing penalty u/s. 271E of the Act should not be passed, the appellant only stated that he is engaged in the business of running a small chits for the customers ranging from street vendors to small business man. He nowhere denied having violated the provisions of section 269T of the Act nor pleaded the existence of reasonable cause within the meaning of provisions of section 273B of the Act. In these circumstances, the assessing authority had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.,8,83,61,571/- u/s. 271E of the Act. Even during the course of proceedings before the Learned CIT(A), the appellant reiterated the same su....