ACIT Vs Sanjeev J. Aeren (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi quashed a Rs.25 crore penalty imposed under Section 271D, ruling that mere seizure of an MOU without evidence of actual cash loan cannot establish violation of Section 269SS. The tribunal emphasized that assumptions without independent proof are insufficient for penalty.
Revenue appealed against order of CIT(A) deleting penalty of Rs.25 crores imposed u/s 271D on the ground that the Assessee had accepted cash loan in violation of s.269SS.
A search u/s 132 was conducted on 17.08.2011 in the Aeren group. During search, a photocopy of MOU dated 10.08.2011 was seized from residence of Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta & also from office of Sanjeev J. Aeren. AO concluded that Shri D.K. Gupta (brother of Assessee) advanced Rs.25 crores in cash to Sanjeev J. Aeren on 31.07.2011 against transfer of 25% undivided share in a Prithvi Raj Road property valued at Rs.18.75 crores. Relying on these findings, Addl. CIT levied penalty u/s 271D holding that Assessee violated s.269SS by accepting cash loan.
Before CIT(A), Assessee argued that there was no actual cash transaction, & penalty was merely based on assumptions drawn in assessment of Shri D.K. Gupta. CIT(A) found that there was no independent evidence of cash loan, & deleted penalty.
