No penalty levied on Akhilesh yadav for violation of Sec. 269SS, as reasonable cause was exist

0 Comments

1. pardeep K sood says:

   Case Regarding disallowance of payment u/s 40A (3) made to suppliers through the saving accounts of employee and initiation of penalty u/s 269SS

   Sir/madam
   The facts of the case are that prop. of the firm is lady and her two sons are employee in the firm. Firm made purchases through broker . payment to broker is made by cash, neft and DD. All the cash payments are made within limit i.e. less than r 20000/- but the NEFT & DD payments are made through the saving accounts of the employee (i.e. sons). When payment is to be made to supplier then cash withdrawn from firm by making entry for paid to creditor and deposited in the saving account of Employee and from saving account it is transferred to supplier of firm by way of NEFT/DD. The proprietor’s health is not good, she is bed ridden at that time and latter on died. The proprietor has no bank account. All the payments made to supplier of the firm are enrooted through the saving accounts of the employees(sons) and the cash deposited in the saving accounts of employee are shown in cash book of the firm as payment to supplier. Can the ITO disallow cash deposited in the saving account of the employee u/s 40A(3) these payments are approximately 40,00,000/- in the Asstt year 2010-11. Please quote case laws

     Reply

   March 16, 2013 at 5:29 pm
2. hkverma says:

   I think no penalty is initiated u/s 269SS by the I T Department if the loan is treated as bogus or not genuine. In such cases the loan amount is added to total income as concealed income u/s 68 of the IT Act. Therefore, if the ITAT or higher courts are of the view that no penalty can be levied under section 269SS of the IT Act, then such view makes section 269SS as redundant.

     Reply

   October 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm