Hardeep. Singh Vs JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
The issue under consideration is whether CIT is correct in charging penalty u/s 271D and 271E?
In the present case the Cash amount received or repaid by the assessee from the commission agent against the sale of the crops so it was neither the loan nor the deposit, therefore the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269ST of the Act were not applicable and as such penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 D and 271E of the Act was not justified, accordingly the same is deleted.
Hence, Appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders dt. 12/11/2018 and 13/11/2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-1 Chandigarh.
2. These appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. At the first instance I will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 70/Chd/201 9 wherein following grounds have been raised:
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs 8,50,000/- u/s 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in considering the fact that the cash transaction as made by the assessee is so called loan taken from the M/s Kundan Lal & Sons, (Commission Agent).
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions of the assessee.
4. That the penalty as confirmed by the CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, e-filed the return of income on 19/02/2015 declaring an income of Rs. 2,32,600/- + agriculture income of Rs. 4,55,000/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Later on the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act, at the returned income. Thereafter the A.O. noticed from the assessment record that the assessee had accepted cash loan from M/s Kundan Lal & Sons, Panchkula otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank drafts as required under the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act as per following details:
