Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Bhavesh K. Kothari,, Rajkot-Gujarat vs The Addl. Commmr. Income Tax,, ... on 29 July, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member
and Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
[Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad]
ITA No. 558/Rjt/2015
Assessment Year 2005-06
Bhavesh K. Kothari, The Addl. CIT,
B/2, Shri Sadguru Appt., Range-4,
Jagnath Plot, Vs Rajkot
Rajkot (Respondent)
PAN: ACTPK7449Q
(Appellant)
Revenue by: Shri P. Bhalla, Sr. D.R.
Assessee by: None
Date of hearing : 17-07-2019
Date of pronounce ment : 29-07-2019
आदेश /ORDER
PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2005-06, arises from order of the CIT(A)-2, Rajkot dated 21-08-2015, in proceedings under section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271E of Rs. 4,000/-
I.T.A No. 558/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 2Bhavesh K. Kothari vs. Addl. CIT
3. The fact in brief is that assessee has filed return of income on 20th Jan, 2005 declaring income of Rs. 2,61,530/- . The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the act by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the act. During the re-assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has noticed that the assessee has made its repayment of loans in mode other than crossed demand draft or cheque as prescribed in section 269T of the Act. Therefore, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271E in view of the provision of section 269T of the act.
4. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain the reason for making repayment of loan in cash of Rs. 4000/- when the loan from co-operative society was exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. Out of total loan of Rs. 70,977/-, the assessee has made repayment of Rs. 4000/- in cash. Consequently, the assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 4000/- on account of making repayment otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft.
5. The assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, nobody has attended from the side of the assessing officer. The ld. departmental representative has placed reliance on the order of ld. CIT(A). After hearing ld. departmental representative and perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that it is undisputed fact that assessee has made repayment of loan to the amount of Rs. 4000/- in cash on 27th April, 2008 out of total loan of Rs.
I.T.A No. 558/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 3Bhavesh K. Kothari vs. Addl. CIT 70,977/- to be repaid to the society. In the light of the above fact, it is clear that assessee has repaid loan totaling to Rs. 4000/- in cash when the loan from co-operative society was exceeding Rs. 20000/-. It is clearly laid down in section 269T of the act that no person shall repay any loan or deposit otherwise than by account payee cheqes or account payee DD, if the account or loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan or deposit was Rs. 20,000/- or more. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain the circumstances and reason for making the repayment of loan in cash as laid down in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, therefore, considering the decision ld. CIT(A) and fact of the case, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29-07-2019 Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 29/07/2019
आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot