2026 (10) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1.That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs 24,40,000 levied u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the true nature of the transaction and the factual matrix of the case. 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the impugned cash amount was neither a loan nor a deposit within the meaning of section 269SS, and therefore, the very foundation for levy of penalty u/s 271D is invalid and unsustainable in law. 3.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the undisputed fact that the assessee merely acted as a mediator/facili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and hence penalty u/s 271D was not exigible. 9. That the ld. Cit(A) has erred in law by confirming the penalty without establishing any mens rea, contumacious conduct deliberate violation of law on the part of the assessee. 10. That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law contrary to facts opposed to principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. 3. The only issue arising in the present appeal is regarding the imposition of penalty u/s 271D of Rs. 24,40,000/-. Brief factual matrix of the case is that it was noted that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 24,47,000/- on 15.11.2010 from one Shri Jain Singh in violation of section 269SS. Pursuant to a reference by the ITO, ld. JCIT, Rohtak proceede....