Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Shivaji R. Pawar-Huf, Malegaon vs Assessee on 18 March, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
Before Ms. Sushma Chowla, Judicial Member,
and Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member.
ITA.Nos.341 to 343/PN/2011
(Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06)
Shivaji R. Pawar (HUF),
Rath Galli, Panch Kandil,
Malegaon, Dist : Nashik .. Appellant
PAN No. AARHS7805L
Vs.
JCIT, Central Range, Nashik .. Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak &
Shri Sanket Joshi
Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Damor
Date of Hearing : 25-02-2015
Date of Pronouncement : 18-03-2015
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
The above 3 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 14-01-2011of the CIT(A)-I, Nashik relating to Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The above 3 appeals were earlier dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03-05-2012 for non-appearance. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide order dated 01-11-2013 recalled the earlier order. Hence these are recalled matters.
2
3. The assessee in the above 3 appeals has challenged the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271D amounting to Rs.2 lakhs for A.Y. 2003-04, Rs.12,57,000/- for A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs.1,58,95,000/- for A.Y. 2005-06 respectively.
ITA No.341/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) :
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act was conducted by the Department in the Pawar group of cases, Malegaon on 27-01-2005. The assessee belongs to the above group which is engaged in the business of refining of Gold, Trading in Gold Jewellery, Silver Articles and imitation of jewellery. This group is also engaged in the business of money lending. During the course of search 2 long pads and diaries were found and seized wherein it was seen that the group was collecting loans in cash from various persons in violation of provisions of section 269SS. The AO informed the JCIT, Central Range, Nashik about the acceptance of loan in cash amounting to Rs.2 lakhs during previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year. The JCIT, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking him to explain as to why penalty u/s.271D should not be levied. It was explained by the assessee that the Karta of the HUF Shri Shivaji R. Pawar is educated only upto 4th standard and was ignorant about the provisions of section 269SS. Further, the Karta always resided in rural areas of Kaledhone Village and Malegaon. There was no bank account in the name of the assessee upto July 2005. The account was opened only after knowing the provisions of section 269SS and 269T. It was explained that the main activity of the assessee HUF and main source of income was 3 agriculture. Further, all the transactions of accepting loans from various persons are genuine and the same were found noted in the seized diary maintained by Karta of the HUF. Relying on various decisions it was submitted that there was reasonable cause in accepting loan in cash from various persons.
5. However, the JCIT was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He observed that the assessee has received loans in cash from the following persons :
Sr.No. Party Details Day Date Amount 1 Balkrishna Nagmoti Saturday 21-09-2005 80,000/- 2 Patil Saheb, Jalgaon Friday 01-11-2002 1,00,000/- 3 Ravindra Saturday 29-03-2003 20,000/-
Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS without any reasonable cause the JCIT levied penalty of Rs.2 lakhs u/s.271D of the I.T. Act.
6. The assessee reiterated the same arguments before the Ld.CIT(A) as were made before the JCIT. The Ld.CIT(A) was also not convinced with the explanation given by the assessee and upheld the penalty levied u/s.271D of the I.T. Act by the JCIT.
7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to page 11 of the paper book which gives the details of loans taken by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and which reads as under : 4
Name of the Date Amount Remark
Depositor/lender as per A.O. as per A.O.
Balkrishna 21/9/02 80,000/- In fact as per seized record the
Nagmoti amount was not accepted
Patil Saheb, 1/11/02 1,00,000/- The A.O. has taxed the amount
Jalgaon as unexplained cash credit in
assessment order passed
u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C
Ravindra 29/3/03 20,000/- The amount is not exceeding
Rs.20,000/- and as held by
Rajasthan High Court and
various other courts, no
contravention of provisions of
section 259SS resulted
Referring to above table, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/- received from Shri Ravindra cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of section 269SS in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhukar B. Pawar where it has been held that in view of CBDT Circular No.572 dated 03- 09-1990 penalty u/s.271D can be levied only in a case where the loan or deposit is taken in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/-. Penalty u/s.271D is not leviable on the assessee for accepting cash loan of Rs.20,000/- from each person. He accordingly submitted that no penalty u/s.271D can be levied on account of cash loan received from Shri Ravindra amounting to Rs.20,000/-.
8.1 So far as amount of Rs.80,000/- received from Shri Balkrishna Nagmoti is concerned he drew the attention of the Bench to pages 71 to 73 of the paper book and submitted that these are the seized papers relating to this assessment year and the name of this person does not appear in the notings of the seized diary. Therefore, he has no objection if the matter is sent back to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the same. If the 5 name of the person does not appear in the seized diary, then the penalty so levied has to be cancelled.
8.2 So far as Rs. 1 lakh received from Shri Patil Saheb of Jalgaon is concerned, he submitted that although the AO has made addition u/s.68, however, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition and therefore, there is violation of provisions of section 296SS in accepting the loan in cash. He accordingly fairly conceded that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS by accepting cash loan of Rs.1 lakh.
9. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily supported the order of the AO and the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee by accepting cash loans has violated the provisions of section 269SS for which penalty u/s.271D has to be levied. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271D has to be upheld.
10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. So far as the amount of Rs.20,000/- received in cash from Shri Ravindra on 29-03-2003 is concerned, we find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar B. Pawar (Supra) had an occasion to decide such an issue. It was held in the said decision that in view of CBDT Circular No.572 dated 03-08-90, penalty u/s.271D can be levied in a case where the loan or deposit taken in cash is in excess of Rs.20,000/-. Penalty u/s.271D is not leviable on the assessee for accepting cash loan of Rs.20,000/- from each person. The relevant 6 observation of the Hon'ble High Court at para 4 and 5 of the order reads as under :
"4. It is now well settled that circulars issued by CBDT are statutory in character and are binding on the Departmental authorities. The authorities including AO and other consequently would be bound by that circular. In the instant case, CBDT for the purpose of attracting s. 271D has set out that the loan or deposit should be in excess of Rs. 20,000. It is true that what CBDT has stated may be contrary to the express language of s. 269SS which uses the expression "twenty thousand rupees or more". The law and the CBDT circulars can be spelled out from the following judgments of the Supreme Court. In Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed "It is clear that a circular of the kind which was issued by the Board would be binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act under s. 5(8) of the Act." Navnit Lal (supra) was followed in Ellerman Lines Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 71 : (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC). In UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 154 CTR (SC) 88 : (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the law was restated and it was held that circulars of CBDT are legally binding on the Revenue and this binding character attaches to the circulars even if they be found not in accordance with the correct interpretation of the section and they depart or deviate from such construction, when they are issued in exercise of the statutory powers under s. 119. It was however clarified that the Board cannot pre-empt a judicial interpretation of the scope and ambit of the provision and further could not impose a burden on the taxpayer higher than what the Act itself, on a true interpretation, envisages. It was observed that the Board has the statutory power under s. 119 to tone down the rigour of the law for the benefit of the assessee by issuing circulars to ensure a proper administration of the fiscal statute. In CST vs. Indra Industries (2001) 168 CTR (SC) 50 : (2001) 248 ITR 338 (SC), the Court further observed that the taxing authority cannot be heard to advance an argument that it is contrary to that interpretation.
5. Considering the circular issued by the CBDT and the loan being not in excess of Rs. 20,000 from each person the interpretation given by the Tribunal to the said circular, the question of law does not arise and consequently, the said appeal is dismissed. The AO could not have acted contrary to the circular."
10.1 Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court cited (Supra) we hold that penalty u/s.271D is not leviable on account of cash loan of Rs.20,000/- received from Shri Ravindra by the assessee since the loan is not in excess of Rs.20,000/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the penalty on this amount. We hold and direct accordingly.
710.2 So far as the amount of Rs.80,000/- received in cash from Shri Balakrishna Nagmoti is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the seized diary does not contain name of the above mentioned person. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to verify the notings in the seized diary found during the course of search. In case the name of the above mentioned person is not appearing in the notings in the seized diary, then the Assessing Officer has to delete the penalty u/s.271D on account of cash loan of Rs.80,000/- received from the above mentioned person. We hold and direct accordingly. 10.3 So far as the cash loan of Rs.1 lakh received from Shri Patil Saheb of Jalgaon is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that there is violation of provisions of section 269SS. We, therefore, uphold the levy of penalty u/s.271D on account of acceptance of cash loan of Rs.1 lakh from Shri Patil Saheb of Jalgaon.
11. The appeal for the impugned assessment year is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.342/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2004-05) :
12. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee during the impugned assessment year has received cash loan of Rs.15,27,000/- from various persons the details of which are as under :
SR.NO. PARTY DETAILS Day Date Amount
1 JAMBO SETH Thursday 01:01.2004 50000
2 JYOTI MAHAJAN Friday 27.02.2004 600000
3 KALPANA R.PATIL Friday 12.03.2004 20000
4 LATADEVI MALPANI Tuesday 01.04.2003 50000
5 NITA DEVI MALPANI Tuesday 01.04.2003 50000
6 RAMESH PAWAR REKHA PATIL Saturday 26.07.2003 50000
7 RUPALI MALPANI Tuesday 01.04.2003 50000
8
8 SHIVAJI M.KOTHAWADE Tuesday 06.01.2004 130000
9 S.LPATIL Thursday 01.01.2004 60000
Tuesday 13.01.2004 80000
10 SONALI MALPANI Tuesday 01.04:2003 50000
Thursday 29.01.2004 70000
Jagganath L. Pawar Thursday 26.06.2003 160000
Wednesday 17.12.2003 17000
11 SUJATA BHAMRE Tuesday 16.12.2003 90000
Total 1527000
12.1 The AO, therefore, informed the JCIT about the acceptance of such cash loans in violation of provisions of section 269SS. The JCIT accordingly issued show cause notice to the assessee asking him to explain as to why penalty u/s.271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be levied.
12.2 On the basis of various submissions made by the assessee, the JCIT noted that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from S.L. Patil and Rs.90,000/- from Mrs. Sujata Bhamre which has been added by the AO u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Similarly, an amount of Rs.50,000/- from Smt. Sonali Malpani and Rs.80,000/- from Shri S.I. Patil were received by account payee cheques have been added by the AO u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, he held that penalty u/s.271D cannot be levied on the above amounts totaling to Rs.2,70,000/- He accordingly reduced the penalty so levied from Rs.15,27,000/- to Rs.12,57,000/-. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO.
12.3 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
912.4 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to pages 12 to 14 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench to the details of deposits/loans accepted by the HUF Late Shri Shivaji R. Pawar which are as under :
Name of the Date Amount Remark Depositor/lender as per A.O. as per A.O. Jambo Seth 1/1/4 50,000 The lender is retired person and not having taxable income. Further, the amount was repaid by A/c. payee cheque in F.Y. 2007-08 Jyoti Mahajan 27/2/04 6,00,000 Lender is Agriculturists and having no banking facility at her village Kalpana R. Patil 12/3/04 20,000 The amount is not exceeding Rs.20,000/- and as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted. She is engaged in agricultural activity only.
Latadevi Malpani 1/4/03 50,000 In fact the amounts were received as follows :
Shri S.R. Pawar HUF - Rs.16,000/-
M/s. S.R. Pawar (Debtors Diary) -
Rs.16,000/-
M/s. R.S. Pawar (Debtors Diary -
Rs.18,000/-
Accordingly, the entries were made in the books of accounts prepared and accepted by the A.O. in assessment proceedings. The transactions are also reflected in above manner by the lender in her books of account and return filed.
Neetadevi Malpani 1/4/03 50,000 In fact the amounts were received as follows :
Shri S.R. Pawar HUF - Rs.16,000/-
M/s. S.R. Pawar (Debtors Diary) -
Rs.19,000/-
M/s. R.S. Pawar (Debtors Diary -
Rs.15,000/-
Accordingly, the entries were made in the books of accounts prepared and accepted by the A.O. in assessment proceedings. The transactions are also reflected in above manner by the lender in her books of account and return filed.
Ramesh Pawar 26/7/03 50,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the (Rekha Patil) assessee's HUF and is residing at remote village having no banking facility Rupali Malpani 1/4/03 50,000 In fact the amounts were received as follows :
Shri S.R. Pawar HUF - Rs.16,000/-
M/s. S.R. Pawar (Debtors Diary) -
Rs.18,000/-
M/s. R.S. Pawar (Debtors Diary -
Rs.16,000/-
10Accordingly, the entries were made in the books of accounts prepared and accepted by the A.O. in assessment proceedings. The transactions are also reflected in above manner by the lender in her books of account and return filed.
Shivaji M. 6/1/04 1,30,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the Kothawade assessee's HUF and is residing at Desherwade Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule.
No banking facility available in the village.
S.L. Patil 1/1/04 60,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount of 13/1/04 80,000 Rs.60,000/- as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C. Further, the amount of Rs.80,000/- has been received by A/c. Payee Cheque by M/s. R.S. Pawar. This fact of cheque payment is mentioned in seized diary. Therefore the assessee is not concerned with the said loan of Rs.80,000/- accepted by M/s.
R.S. Pawar by A/c. Payee Cheque Sonali Malpani 1/4/03 50,000 Actually amount of Rs.50,000/-
29/1/04 70,000 belongs to Rupali and same is accepted in cheque, appearing in the books of Pawar Jewellers and same is also shown by the lender in her books. Your assessee is not concerned with the said loan accepted by M/s. Pawar Jewellers by A/c. Payee Cheque. The amount of Rs.70,000/- is received as follows :
Shri S.R. Pawar HUF - Rs.19,000/-
M/s. S.R. Pawar (Debtors Diary) -
Rs.18,000/-
M/s. R.S. Pawar (Debtors Diary -
Rs.17,000/-
M/s. Pawar Jewellers (Debtors Diary) - Rs.16,000/-
Accordingly, the entries were made in the books of accounts prepared and accepted by the A.O. in assessment proceedings. The transactions are also reflected in above manner by the lender.
Jagganath N. Pawar 26/6/03 1,60,000 Actual amount received is 17/12/03 Rs.16,000/- and not Rs.1,60,000/- as per seized diary. Further an amount of Rs.1000/- was taken and repaid Rs.1,000/-. The balance amount was Rs.17,000/-. The lender is an agriculturist and the amount accepted is below Rs.20,000/-. He is residing at remote village.
Sujata Bhamre 16/12/03 90,000 The lender is agriculturist and was not having bank account. Further, the AO has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C 11 Referring to the above chart, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar B. Pawar, no penalty u/s.271D can be levied on account of cash loan of Rs.20,000/- received from Smt. Kalpana R. Patil. 12.5 So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- taken from Latadevi Malpani in cash is concerned he submitted that the above amounts were received from S.R. Pawar HUF-Rs.16,000/-, Rs.16,000 from S.R. Pawar (Debtors Diary) and Rs. 18,000/- from R.S. Pawar.
12.6 Referring to page 64 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the Schedule of Current Liabilities where names of all these persons are appearing. He accordingly submitted that this issue can be restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify and decide the issue accordingly. Similar is the situation in the case of Smt. Neetadevi Malpani, Smt. Rupali Malpani and Smt. Sonali Malpani. He accordingly submitted that the AO may be directed to verify the details from the seized diary and decide the issue accordingly. So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- from Shri Ramesh D. Pawar received in cash on 26-07-2003 is concerned he submitted that the lender is an agriculturist like the assessee HUF and has resided at a remote village having no banking facility. Under these circumstances, there was a reasonable cause for accepting the cash loan. Therefore, the same has to be deleted. He however submitted that the issue of having no banking facility in the village of the lender Shri Ramesh D. Pawar can be set-aside to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the same and delete the penalty if the 12 contention of the assessee is found to be correct. As regards the cash loan of Rs.1,30,000/- taken from Shri Shivaji Kothawade on 06-01-2004 is concerned he submitted that the case of this person is like that of Shri Ramesh D. Pawar who is also not having any banking facility and residing in a remote village. Therefore, this issue also may be restored to the file of the AO for verification.
12.7 So far as amount of Rs.1,40,000/- taken from Shri S.L. Patil is concerned he submitted that out of the above amount the assessee has received an amount of Rs.80,000/- by account payee cheque in the name of M/s. R.S. Pawar. This fact of cheque payment is mentioned in the seized diary, therefore, no penalty is leviable. So far as the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- is concerned he submitted that the amount has already been taxed by the AO u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, no penalty u/s.271D is leviable on this amount. He however submitted that this issue also may be restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the same.
12.8 As regards the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- received in cash on 26-06- 2003 and amount of Rs.17,000/- received in cash on 17-12-2002 from Shri Jagannath Pawar is concerned he submitted that the actual amount is Rs.16,000/- and not Rs.1,60,000/- as per the seized diary. Further, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was taken and repaid. The balance amount was only Rs.17,000/-. Further, the amount is also less than Rs.20,000/-, therefore, this issue also can be set aside to the file of the AO with a direction to verify from the seized diary and thereafter to delete the penalty. 13 12.9 As regards the amount of Rs.60,000/- from Mrs. Jyoti Mahajan is concerned, he submitted that the lender is an agriculturist and has got no banking facility at her village. He, however, expressed his inability to substantiate the same with supporting evidence. In case of Shri Jambo Seth he fairly admitted that there is violation of provisions of section 269SS.
12.10 So far as the amount of Rs.90,000/- from Smt. Sujata Bhamre is concerned he submitted that the AO has not levied any penalty on this amount. He accordingly submitted that appropriate direction may be given to the AO.
13. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A).
14. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. So far as the amount of Rs.20,000/- received in cash on 12-03-2004 from Smt. Kalpana R. Patil is concerned the same has to be deleted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar D. Pawar (Supra) which has already been incorporated at para 10 of the impugned order vide ITA No.341/PN/2011. Following the reasonings given therein, penalty u/s.271D on this amount is directed to be deleted.
14.1 So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- received from Smt.Latadevi Malpani, Rs.50,000/- from Smt.Neetadevi Malpani, Rs.50,000/- from 14 Smt.Rupali Malpani and Rs.1,20,000/- from Shri Sonali Malpani are concerned in view of the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the amounts are taken from different persons not exceeding Rs.20,000/- in each case, the same are restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify from the seized diary and take appropriate decision as per law and facts after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14.2 So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- received from Shri Ramesh D. Pawar and Rs.1,30,000/- from Shri Shivaji Kothawade are concerned the same is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the above persons are agriculturists and have no banking facility at their respective villages. If the same is found to be correct, then in our opinion there exists reasonable cause for accepting such cash loan from the agriculturists having no banking facility and the Assessing Officer is directed to cancel the penalty u/s.271D.
14.3 So far as the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- received from Shri S.L. Patil is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that he has received an amount of Rs.80,000/- by account payee cheque from Shri S.L. Patil and the loan of Rs.60,000/- has been added by the AO u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Similarly, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- received from Mr. Jagannath Pawar is not correct and it is only Rs.16,000/- as per the seized diary and the assessee has taken further loan of Rs.1000/- which was also repaid. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify from the seized diary regarding the veracity of the 15 above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
14.4 So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- received from Shri Jambo Seth and Rs.6 lakhs from Shri Jyoti Mahajan are concerned in absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee regarding non levy of penalty u/s.271D we uphold the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty on the above amounts. Since according to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, no penalty has been levied in the case of loan from Smt. Sujata Bhamre, we are not dealing with this issue.
15. The appeal filed by the assessee for the above assessment year is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.343/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2005-06) :
16. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO vide his letter dated 27- 03-2008 intimated to the JCIT that the assessee has received cash loan from various persons amounting to Rs.1,73,77,200/- the details of which are given as per Pages 1 to the 5 of the penalty order. Before the JCIT, the assessee justified accepting of such cash loans from various persons. It was argued that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee. However, the JCIT was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. After considering the submission of the assessee and noting that certain amounts were added by the AO u/s.68 and considering certain amounts to be less than Rs.20,000/- he deleted the penalty u/s.271D on account of cash loans accepted by the assessee to the tune of 16 Rs.14,78,200/-. He accordingly levied penalty of Rs.1,58,95,000/- u/s.271D of the I.T. Act on the balance amount. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the JCIT. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 16.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart giving the details of deposits/loans accepted by Shivaji R. Pawar (HUF) :
Name of the Date as per Amount as Remark Depositor /lender A.O. per A.O. Anant P. More 27/12/04 26,000 The lender is agriculturist and was not having bank
account. Further the A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
Anjanabai 1/1/05 25,000 The lender is agriculturist and was not having bank Chaudhari account. Further the A.O, has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
A.R. Salunke 20/12/04 7,25,000 The lender is agriculturist, amount actually belongs to Vinayak Borse Asha Bahalkar 1/6/04 20,000 The amount is not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Asha G. Hinge 1/1/05 50,000 Amount accepted on Sunday .
12/12/04 25,000
Ashok B. Vaidya 12/12/04 40,000 Amount accepted on Sunday . Lender was retired
person . He is now no more.
Ashok G. 14/1/05 50,000 In case of amount Rs. 15000/-which is not
Varkhede 3/12/04 15,000 exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and as held by Rajasthan
High Court and various other courts, no
contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Baijabai P. Deore 5/12/04 50,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. Residing at Mehune village. No banking facility available n the village. Payment recd. on Sunday.
Balkrishna 21/12/04 15,000 AS amount Rs.15000/-which is not exceeding Rs. Nagmoti 20,000/- and as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Balu A. 22/1/5 20,000 AS amount Rs.20000/-which is not exceeding Rs. Dandagavhal 20,000/- and as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted. The A.O. taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C 17 Bhagwan S. 9/12/04 60,000 AS amount Rs.20000/-which is not exceeding Rs. Chaudhari 11/12/04 6,000 20,000/- and as held by Rajasthan High Court and 10/12/04 8,000 various other courts, no contravention of 2/12/04 20,000 provisions of section 269SS resulted. Bhaluseth 1/1/05 2,50,000 Senior Citizen. Majuri Income only. Vadnere Bharat Bhate 17/10/04 1,00,000 The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received on 15/10/0 4 20,000 Sunday. In respect of Rs.20,000/- as held by 1/10/04 80,000 Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no 5/10/04 50,000 contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Bhausingh 25/1/05 42,000 The A.O. taxed the amount as unexplained cash F. Pawar credit in assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C Bhila D. Tisge 22/12/04 60,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's HUF. The A.O. taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C Bindu Joshi 5/12/04 40,000 Amount accepted on Sunday B.N. Wani 25/11/04 80,000 --
B.T. Wani Sir 12/12/04 90,000 Retired person. Amount accepted on Sunday. Chandrakala R. 1/6/04 30,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's Salunke 20/5/04 20,000 HUF. In respect of Rs.20,000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Dattu Chaudhari 21/1/05 28,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
Dilip Jaju 12/12/04 1,00,000 First two payment reed, on Sunday.
2/1/05 1,00,000 ..............do..............
1/1/05 4,00,000
1/1/05 2,00,000
Dinesh Wani 19/7/04 20,000 In respect of Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High
10/6/04 2,60,000 Court and various other courts, no contravention of
provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Dhanraj D. Patil 22/1/05 85,000 -
Dharmendra 1/12/04 1,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
Sonawane 13/12/04 40,000 H.U.F. In respect of amount less than Rs.20000/-
1/12/04 36,000 as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other
15/12/04 12,000 courts, no contravention of provisions of section
269SS resulted. Residing at remote village from Malegaon Taluka.
Dilip Joshi 27/12/04 40,000 He is Labour, having No Bank A/c at the time . Dinesh Jagtap 22/1/05 80,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. Dinesh Sonar 14/1/05 64,000 He is Labour , having No Bank A/c at the time of payment.
D.S. Wani Sir 15/11/04 1,75,000 Retired - Agriculturist. Govind Sonje 15/1/05 1,65,000 As per affidavit amount belongs to two ladies, who are housewives.
18G.V. Malpure 28/12/04 1,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. and is residing at village Kalwan Hari Hareshwar 14/12/04 50,000 Occupation is Bhikshuki. Said a/c belong to joshi Guruji, Amount of Rs. 9000/- added in income. Hinge Madam 1/1/05 2,00,000 She is pensioner .
Hirachand P. 7/1/05 1,00,000 -
Kothari
Indubai Tatar 4/I 2/04 23,000 Housewife . No Bank A/c. No other income
source.
Jagganath L 17/7/04 15,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
Pawar 17/12/04 15,000 H.U.F. Residing at Kaulane. Actually there is one
entry which is renewed on 17-12-2004 and not two entries as stated in notice. In respect of amount less than Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Jarana Joshi 5/12/04 50,000 Amount accepted on Sunday. Actually amount is Rs. 19500/-. Further the A.O. has taxed the amount Rs.19500/- as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s, 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. Jaiprakash Jadhav 22/12/04 45,000 The Amount of Rs.50000/- on 12-12-2004 is 22/12/04 1,00,000 received on Sunday. Lender now expired.
22/12/04 55,000
20/12/04 50,000
6/12/04 50,000
12/12/04 50,000
Joshi Guruji 15/12/04 6,700 Occupation -- Bhikshuki. As amount is less than
18/12/04 7,000 Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and
various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted. The A.O. has taxed the amount Rs.50,000/- as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C, which includes Rs. 13,700/-.
Jyoti D. 22/8/04 50,000 Amount accepted on Sunday. Chaudhari Jyoti Mahajan 27/5/04 4,50,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. Residing at Kaulane. Remote Village of Malegaon Taluka.
Kamlabai K. Patil 18/11/04 20,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. As amount not exceeding Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of revisions of section 269SS resulted, 'he A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C Kiran G. 19/12/04 60,000 Amount accepted on Sunday . The Bhavsar lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. Kishor C. 12/11/04 10,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the C. Amrutkar 11/12/04 10,000 assessee's H.U.F. In respect of amount 27/12/04 10,000 up to Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan 27/12/04 10,000 High Court and various other courts, 29/12/04 20,000 no contravention of provisions of 3/12/04 40,000 section 269SS resulted.
12/11/04 10,000
19
23/11/04 20,000
15/12/04 15,000
25/12/04 16,000
28/12/04 10,000
Kranti G. Ahire 27/12/04 8,14,000 -
Madhav B. Joshi 28/12/04 55,000 Senior Citizen. Labour charges income
Madhukar 5/1/05 4,00,000 Senior Citizen. Retired person
Chaudhari Sir 20/12/14
Madhukar 12/11/04 50,000 Retired person. The A.O. has taxed the amount as
Mangle unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed
u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153C
1/1/05 1,20,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's HUF
Madhukar Pawar is close relative of Pawar family. In view of Pune
Tribunal's decision in the case of Kasaliwal, no penalty leviable.
Mangla D. 5/12/04 3,50,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's HUF. Bhamre 5/12/04 30,000 In respect of acceptance of amount on 5-12-2004 10/12/04 30,000 and Rs.350000 & Rs.30000 same was accepted on Sunday Manjula C. 5/1/04 3,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's HUF. Amrutkar 11/12/04 70,000 In respect of acceptance of amount on 5-12-2004 15/12/04 10,000 for Rs.15000/- and on 19-12-2004 for Rs.10000 5/12/04 15,000 same is on Sunday. In respect of amount up to 16/11/04 15,000 Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan H.C. and various 19/12/04 10,000 other courts, no contravention of 29/12/04 20,000 provisions of section 269SS resulted.
19/12/04 20,000
Manohar H. 27/12/04 60,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the
Chaudhari assessee's H.U.F.
M.D. Bhamre 1/10/04 50,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the
assessee's H.U.F. Amount received on
Sunday.
Meerabai Hire 14/12/04 80,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as
11/12/04 20,000 unexplained cash credit in assessment
order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. In
respect of amount up to Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Megha Joshi 5/12/04 40,000 Amount received on Sunday. Ladies is housewife.
The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
Monabai 16/11/04 80,000 Housewife as well she is senior citizen Kankariya Murlidhar R. 23/12/04 1,00,000 Retired and senior citizen Ahirrao 30/12/04 45,000 Namdeo P. Mali 24/12/04 50,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's HUF.
20Narendra 5/1/05 20,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash Maharaj credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
153C. Amount received on Sunday. In respect of amount upto 20,0000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted Narendra O. Mali 2/1/05 60,000 Amount received on Sunday . Nimbabai 5/12/04 60,000 Amount of Rs.60000/-& Rs.2000/-
Chaudhari 5/12/04 2,000 received on Sunday . The lender is
24/11/04 2,000 agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F.
6/12/04 4,000
Nirmala G. Patil 1/1/05 20,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. In respect of amount upto 20,0000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted Parul J. Doshi 12/8/04 20,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. In respect of amount upto 20,0000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted Prakash R. 25/12/04 2,00,000 Retired Person. The A.O. has taxed Khairnar the amount as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
Premabai G. 6/12/04 1,00,000 Housewife and Senior Citizen. Sisodia Prema Joshi 3/10/04 30,500 Amount received on Sunday.
Prerana Shinde 27/4/04 5,00,000 -
Rajasbai Trambak 12/12/04 10,000 Senior Citizen. Amount received on
Rajendra R 24/12/04 90,000 Sunday
- . The A.O. has taxed the
Chaudhari
Raju Sakharia 1/4/04 1,00,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
Rambhai 27/12/04 1,80,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
(Uttam 20/12/04 50,000 H.U.F.
Chaudhari ) 7/12/04 1,40,000
Ramesh D. 4/12/04 30,000 Retired Person.
Bramhankar 1/12/04 50,000
3/12/04 50,000
1/12/04 80,000
Ramesh Pawar 14/1/05 70,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
( Rekha Patil ) H.U.F. and is residing at Saundane
Ram Pophale 7/12/04 1,74,000 Private Service.
21/12/04 94,000
11/12/04 36,000
R.B Suryawanshi 1/2/05 1,75,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
Sir H.U.F. is residing at Mungse village.
Sandhya Shah 1/1/05 50,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
(Kaka) credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)r.w.s.
153C.
21
Santosh Chauhan 26/10/04 1,00,000 Amount in respect of entry dt. 26-10-2004 for
27/10/04 40,000 Rs.100000/- received on Sunday .
Satyanarayan 21/12/04 50,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
Heda credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
153C.
Shankar 1/1/05 5,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
Sonawane credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
153C.Retired Person.
Shashi Hinge 15/4/04 68,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
H.U.F. The A.O. has taxed he amount of
Rs.50,000/- as unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
53C.Retired Person.
Sheetal Y 6/12/04 70,000 Housewife.
Mahurkar
Shivaji T. Patil 27/4/04 41,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
H.U.F.
Shivaji V. Pawar 9/1/05 4,00,000 Retired Person. Amount received on Sunday.
Seema Hinge 16/11/04 62,000 Service. The A.O. has taxed the amount as
4/12/04 30,000 unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed
u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.
Somnath Vadge 6/12/04 50,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
6/12/04 25,000 H.U.F. The A.O. has taxed the amount as
21/11/04 5,000 unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed
u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C.In respect of amount recd.Rs.5,000/- same is received on Sunday. Sonu U. 13/12/04 18,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the 17,000 Chaudhari 13/1/05 assessee's H.U.F .Amount of Rs. 17,000 /- already taxed as unexplained cash credit in assessment proceedings. In respect of amount of Rs.18,000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted, being amount less than Rs.20000/-. Subhash Kankrej 1/1/05 1,00,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash Sir 20,000 credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
153C. In respect of amount up to Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269 SS resulted.
Subhash K. 1/11/04 20,000 Pensioner. The A.O. has taxed the amount as Agnihotri unexplained cash credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C. In respect of amount upto Rs.20000/- as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Sanjay Punekar 7/1/05 3,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F.Amount already taxed as unexplained cash credit in assessment proceedings.
Sunita A. Desale 23/12/04 1,60,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. is residing at Kalwadi village.
22Surekha 12/12/04 17,000 7,000 Amount Rs.l7000/- received on Sunday. Amount Kshirsagar 2/12/04 already taxed as unexplained cash credit in assessment proceedings.
Surekha N. Patil 1/12/04 90,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's H.U.F. Amount Rs.92,500/-already taxed as unexplained cash credit in assessment proceedings.
Suresh Ahire 1/1/05 2,45,000 Teacher.
Suresh B. Garud 12/1/05 50,000 Teacher. In respect of amount up to Rs.20000/- as
24/1/05 30,000 held by Rajasthan High Court and various other
14/1/05 20,000 courts, no contravention of provisions of section
269SS resulted.
Suresh Yeola 1/12/04 12,00,000 As per affidavit submitted amount belongs to total
9 persons. Out of that two are housewives, having no other income.
Suwalal Bafana 24/7/04 50,000 Amount already taxed as unexplained cash credit in
assessment proceedings. ,
Tarabai 21/1/05 30,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
Wankhede H.U.F. She is Housewife.
Tatya Eknath 12/12/04 50,000 In respect entry dtd. 12-12-2004 for Rs.50,000/-
6/12/04 1,00,000 amount received on Sunday. As per affidavit
14/12/04 1,00,000 submitted amount belongs to Shri Rajendra
25/12/04 1,50,000 Vlahajan , Agriculturists, residing at Lohner,Tal.
25/12/04 2,00,000 Baglan ,Dist.Nashik.
24/12/04 1,80,000
T.S. Pawar 4/9/04 30,000 She is Wife of Late Shri Shivaji R. Pawar, family
member. Amount already taxed as unexplained cash credit in assessment proceedings.
Tushar Vadge 19/12/04 50,000 Entry amount of Rs.50,000/- acceptance of amount 30/11/04 30,000 is on Sunday .In respect of amount of Rs.10,000/- 23/11/04 10,000 as held by Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no contravention of provisions of section 269SS resulted.
Usha G. Wani 1/1/05 50,000 Amount already taxed as unexplained cash credit in assessment proceedings.
Vaishali G. Sonje 20/12/04 1 8,000 In respect of amount up to Rs.20,000/-as held by
27/12/04 12,000 Rajasthan High Court and various other courts, no
27/12/04 5,000 contravention of provisions of section 269SS
14/12/04 30,000 resulted.
27/1/05 35,000
1/10/04 24,000
1/12/04 2,000
Vijay A. Yeola 17/10/04 90,000 Amount accepted on Sunday.
Vijay Bhandarkar 7/12/04 1,10,000 He is residing at Kalwadi village.
17/12/04 1,00,000
Vijay K. 23/12/04 29,000 The A.O. has taxed the amount as unexplained cash
Agnihotri credit in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.
153C.
Vijaya W. 5/12/04 31,000 Amount accepted on Sunday.
Patwardhan
Vishwanath A. 1/1/05 75,000 Amount of Rs.25000/-received on Sunday.
Joshi 26/12/04 25,000
V.T. Wani Sir 15/12/04 2,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's
H.U.F. As well he is getting pension income also. 23 Waman R. 21/9/04 1,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's Shinde 24/9/04 70,000 H.U.F. is residing at Vadgaon village ,where no 23/9/04 80,000 banking facilities are available.
20/9/04 1,00,000 Yamunabai 1/1/05 4,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's Bhosale H.U.F. Yashwant B. 2/11/04 4,00,000 The lender is agriculturist, like the assessee's Gaikwad. H.U.F.
16.2 Referring to the above table, he submitted that penalty has been levied on account of cash loan of Rs.20,000/- each accepted from Smt. Asha Bahalkar, Shri Balu Dandagavhal, Smt. Kamalabai K. Patil, Shri Narendra Maharaj, Smt. Nirmala G. Patil, Shri Parul J. Doshi, Shri Subhash Agnihotri. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar D. Pawar (Supra) no penalty u/s.271D is leviable on these amounts.
16.3 Referring to the above table, he submitted that in the following cases the lenders are agriculturists and were not having bank accounts at their respective villages. Therefore, there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for accepting cash loan from the above lenders and therefore no penalty u/s.271D is leviable.
1. Shri Anant P. More - Rs.26,000/-
2. Shri Anjanabai Chaudhari - Rs.25,000/-
3. Shri Baijabai P. Deore - Rs.50,000/-
He however submitted that he has no objection if the above issue is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify and after being satisfied that they are agriculturists and were not having banking facility in their villages delete the penalty u/s.271D on account of reasonable cause. 24 16.4 So far as amount of Rs.1,75,000/- obtained in cash on 01-02-005 from Shri R.B. Suryawanshi Sir is concerned, he submitted that the above amount as per the seized diary is only Rs.1 lakh and not Rs.1,75,000/- as held by the AO. Therefore, this issue may be restored to the file of the AO for verification. So far as the amount of Rs.50,000/- received from Shri Satyanarayana Hede is concerned he submitted that the CIT(A) has already deleted the same.
16.5 So far as the various other amounts as appearing in the table filed by him he submitted that in certain other cases the lenders are agriculturists. Therefore, a lenient view should be taken and no penalty u/s.271D should be levied. Referring to the said chart he submitted that in certain cases even when the amount of cash loan is less than Rs.20,000/- the AO has levied penalty and therefore he may be directed to cancel the penalty on such amount. Referring to the case of Shri Balkrishna Nagmoti where loan of Rs.15,000/- taken on 21-12-2004 and Shri Rajasbai Trambak where loan of Rs.10,000/- taken on 12-12-2004 and Rs.5,000/- taken from Shri Shankar Sonwane on 01-01-2005 he submitted that narration for accepting the loan from the above persons has already been explained in the remarks column and the table filed where loan is admittedly less than Rs.20,000/- in each case. He accordingly submitted that appropriate decision may be taken.
17. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A).
25
18. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. So far as the amount of Rs.20,000/- each received from Shri Asha Bahalkar, Balu Dandagavhal, Smt. Kamalabai K. Patil, Shri Narendra Maharaj, Shri Nirmala G. Patil, Shri Praul J. Doshi and Shri Subhash Agnihotri are concerned the penalty u/s.271D is not leviable on these amounts in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar D. Pawar (Supra). We have already discussed this issue at Para No.10 of the impugned order while deciding ITA No.341/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04). Following the same reasonings, penalty u/s.271D on these amounts are directed to be deleted. 18.1 Similarly, in the following cases, the assessee has submitted that the lenders are agriculturists and were not having banking facility in their respective villages :
1. Shri Anant P. More - Rs.26,000/-
2. Shri Anjanabai Chaudhari - Rs.25,000/-
3. Shri Baijabai P. Deore - Rs.50,000/-
We therefore restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the case of the above persons and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case, the contention of the assessee that they are agriculturists and were not having banking facilities in their respective villages is correct, then there exists some reasonable cause for accepting cash loans and the AO after considering the same shall cancel the penalty u/s.271D on these amounts.
2618.2 As regards the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- obtained from Shri R.B. Suryawanshi Sir on 01-02-2005 is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount is only Rs.1 lakh as per the seized diary. We therefore restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the seized diary and if the amount is Rs.1 lakh only, then the AO is directed to restrict the penalty on this amount of Rs. 1 lakh as against Rs.1,75,000/-. So far as penalty levied on certain cash loans not exceeding Rs.20,000/- the AO is directed to delete the penalty, if at all penalty has been levied on such amounts. The AO is also directed to delete the penalty if any cash loan has been treated as cash credit and added u/s.68 of the I.T. Act which has been confirmed in appeal by Ld.CIT(A) since in our opinion penalty u/s.271D is not leviable in case of addition u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Although the Ld.CIT(A) has already deleted penalty u/s.271D where the loan has been treated as cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, still the assessee in the chart filed has taken such plea. The AO is therefore directed to verify the same and delete the penalty, if any, levied on such amounts treated as cash credit u/s.68 and confirmed by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal 18.3 In case of other amounts in absence of any reasonable cause for accepting such cash loans in excess of Rs.20,000/-, the assessee, in our opinion, has violated the provisions of section 271D of the I.T. Act., therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) levying penalty on these amounts is upheld.
27
19. In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the Open Court on 18-03-2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PANDA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
satish
Pune, dated 18th March, 2015
Copy of the order is forwarded to:
1. The Assessee
2. The Department
3. The CIT(A)-I, Nashik
4. The CIT-I, Nashik
5. The DR "A" Bench, Pune.
6. Guard File
By Order
// True Copy //
Assistant Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune