Similar look at could have been drawn in CITvs

Similar look at could have been drawn in CITvs

Thus, for the CIT vs I.P. Asia (P.) Ltd. sixteen taxmann 407 (Delhi), DHC held that if these assessment is actually used the latest receipt out of share application funds from the about three private restricted people for allocation off offers regarding the assessee-providers cannot be addressed given that receipt away from financing otherwise deposit.

Almost every other behavior for which this has been stored that Show software funds gotten for the cash won’t count sometimes in order to that loan or deposit are VLS Dishes (P

While the express software currency obtained from the assessee is addressed since undisclosed income, penalty legal proceeding couldn’t was in fact started below area 269SS realize with area 271D of one’s Earnings-taxation Act, 1961. CIT vs R. P. Singh and you may Co. Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 0217 (Del) .

Regardless of if sections 269SS and you will 269T utilize the terms and conditions “if not than by an accountpayee cheque or account payee bank draft”the fresh told you terms are supposed to strike onlycash purchases (given that apparent regarding CBDT Round No. 387 dated. 6-7-1984) we.e. ifthere is deals which can be “otherwise than by the a free account payee cheque oraccount payee bank draft” but they don’t cover one way of cash, the brand new saidtransactions would not be struck by the aforesaid provisions given that demonstratedhereunder.

Within the CIT compared to. Noida Cost Bridge Co. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260 (Delhi) it had been heldthat when no commission is created into the bucks, nevertheless exact same was effected from the journalentry from inside the books off membership out of assessee and there is zero ticket away from section269SS in order to guarantee punishment u/s 271D. Govind Ku) 253 ITR 103 (Raj).

Within the Asst. CIT compared to. Jag Vijay Auto Fund (P.) Ltd. (2001) 78 ITD 378 (Jp.)it absolutely was kept your head target away from section 269SS is actually so you’re able to stop the system oftaking unaccounted dollars or unaccounted dumps if you don’t than by the anaccount payee cheque otherwise membership payee draft.

Although non-payments beneath the aforementioned parts would generally be noticeable during the time of investigations procedures only, these punishment proceedings was separate away from investigations legal proceeding. Also initiation of those legal proceeding try separate regarding analysis process and and therefore area 275 have gone through drastic transform to control eg proceedings.

Where in actuality the matter wastransferred because of the deposits by way of import vouchers, the newest wide variety inquestion would-be said to was indeed credited into the their bank accountthrough right financial avenues depending on spirit out of point 269SS and you can, thus, theassessee team couldn’t be considered features violated the fresh provisions off section269SS

Punishment proceedings significantly less than point 271D otherwise 271E had been separate procedures and had nothing at all to do with review legal proceeding otherwise their consequences. Ergo, CIT(A) was not justified in the cancelling the newest instructions imposing penalty into the crushed your testing legal proceeding, for the duration of hence, punishment significantly less than part 271D and you can 271E was indeed initiated got held are invalid.

Assessee on the appeals ahead of CIT(A) contended one to that the investigations instructions where in fact the penalty legal proceeding lower than point 271D and you will 271E was indeed initiated was in fact quashed and therefore this new orders loan till payday Augusta GA towering penalty lower than area 271D and 271E must feel quashed. CIT(A) recognized the fresh new assertion and you may quashed this new purchases imposing penalty. It absolutely was kept that as much as imposition out of penalty significantly less than part 271D or 271E try worried, men and women was independent process and having nothing at all to do with evaluation procedures or the consequences. Thus, CIT(A) wasn’t warranted inside cancelling the newest sales towering punishment into floor that the research legal proceeding, in the course of hence, punishment below point 271D and you can 271E was in fact started is kept to-be incorrect. Aside from the undeniable fact that your order holding the fresh examination in order to end up being incorrect had not become last, CIT(A) must not has actually terminated the fresh new instructions imposing punishment on this subject ground. Just like the, CIT(A) had not adjudicated the matter on the merits, ideal direction would be to remit the question of imposition from punishment toward CIT(A) to have new planning, making every aspect unlock (Associated Comparison Ages : 2009-2010 to help you 2011-12) – [DCIT v. C. Gangadhara Murthy – Go out of Reasoning : (ITAT Bangalore)].

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir