Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Sneh Finance & Investment, Pune vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH " B", PUNE
BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S.No. ITA No Asstt.yea Appellant Respondent
r
1 304/PN/10 1998-99 M/s Sneh Finance & Addl.
Investment, 1194/1, Commissioner
Vrindavan Society, IInd floor, of I.T. Cen.R-
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 005 2, Pune
- PAN AAHFS 1098K
2 305/PN/10 1999-00 -do- -do-
3 306/PN/10 2000-01 -do- -do-
4 332/PN/10 2001-02 -do- -do-
5 333/PN/10 2003-04 -do- -do-
6 330/PN/10 2000-01 M/s Sneh Property -do-
Development P. Ltd. Pune
7 331/PN/10 2004-05 -do- -do-
Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathak
Respondent by : Smt Ann Kapthuama
ORDER
PER BENCH:
The captioned appeals relate to assessees of the same group and involve certain common issues and, therefore, they were heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. The common issue involved in all the captioned appeals relates to the confirmation by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271D for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (n short 'the Act') for the captioned assessment years.
3. The brief background of the dispute is that the captioned assessees belong to one Sneha group of cases, which is engaged in the business of construction and finance. On 16.10.2003, a search action under section 132(1) was carried out in the Sneha group of cases, which was preceded by a search on Shri Bhupendrakumar H. Shah and Sriram H. Soni group on 29.7.2003. In the 2 searches on Shah and Soni group, it was found that they had advanced monies to Sneha group of assessees and others and, according to the Revenue, the seized material showed an irregular manner and unaccounted transactions. In this background, assessments were finalized in terms of Chapter XIV of the Act in the Sneha group of cases. Subsequent to the assessments in the captioned cases, the Assessing Officer also noticed violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and accordingly penalties under section 271D have been levied, which are subject-matter of dispute in the captioned proceedings.
4. In this background it was a common point between the parties that the issues involved in the captioned appeals are identical and more or less involve similar fact-situation. In this background, we now proceed to adjudicate the individual appeals.
5. ITA No 304/PN/10 is an appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 18.11.2009 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99 whereby a penalty of Rs 22 lakhs levied under section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act has been levied. Briefly put the facts are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had borrowed money through bearer cheques from Bhupendrakumar H. Shah and his associate concerns, which was in violation of the requirement of section 269SS of the Act. In para 5.2 of the penalty order, details of loans stated to have been received through bearer cheques from BHS by the assessee during the year under consideration has been noticed which totalled upto Rs 22 lakhs. On being show-caused as to why penalty under section 271D be not levied, the assessee submitted that such transactions have been duly accounted for by the assessee in its account books and also recorded by the lenders in their books of account and that these are genuine loan transactions. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and he accordingly levied penalty of Rs 22 lakhs in terms of section 271D of the Act. 3 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has sustained the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
6. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that penalty in this case has been levied in the same manner as were levied in other group cases, namely, in the case of M/s Sneh Builders. It was pointed out that the Tribunal has considered the penalty levied in the case of Ms Sneh Builders vide its order in ITA No 520/PN/08 dated 20.5.2011 whereby the penalty levied has been deleted. In the case of M/s Sneh Builders also, similar loans were found to have been raised by bearer cheques from Bhupendrakumar H. Shah group and the facts are identical. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid precedent the impugned penalty be deleted.
7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative while not disputing the factual matrix brought out by the learned Counsel, however, submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the penalty levied under section 271D be sustained. It was pointed out that in this case the assessee did not produce books of account and that there was no reasons explained as to why loans were raised by bearer cheques and that ignorance of law was no excuse. It was, therefore, submitted that the lower authorities made no mistake in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act.
8. In reply, the learned Counsel submitted that identical facts have been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sneh Builders (supra) and that there was no reason to deviate from the decision in the case of M/s Sneh Builders (supra). It was also pointed out that in the present case, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax in the penalty order has recorded that during the course of assessment proceedings books of account were indeed produced, although during the course of search books of account were not found. A reference has been further made to para 5.2 of the penalty order, wherein it has been clearly brought out that the cash book of the assessee has been examined 4 and it is on that basis the transactions in question have been identified. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, it cannot be said that the assessee did not produce the books of account as contended by the learned Departmental Representative.
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is quite evident from the orders of the authorities below that penalty has been levied with respect to certain loans stated to have been raised by the assessee from Bhupendrakumar H. Shah and his associate concerns by way of bearer cheques which has been construed as in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Having perused the precedent in the case of M/s Sneh Builders (supra) as also the discussion in paras 5 and 5.2 of the impugned penalty order, it is evident that transactions in the two cases stand on identical footing. Under these circumstances, we find that on the principle of consistency, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s Sneh Builders (supra) deserves to be followed. The following discussion in the case of M/s Sneh Builders (supra) is worthy of notice:
"7. After going through rival submissions and material on record we find that certain cheques were claimed to have been issued as security for the entire Sneh group. In the statement of Shri mahendra Yeole recorded u/s 131 on 11-1-2003 it was confirmed by him that the cheques found and seized from the premises of Shri B.H. shah were issued from different firms and money was borrowed for business purposes and that such cheques were taken back on renewal of the loan transactions. Some of those cheques were used for making payments while others were cancelled. It was general statement with regards to transaction with Sneh group but it is not in particular with regards to assessee i.e. Sneh Builders. There is nothing on record to suggest that the copy of the statement by Shri B.H. shah was given to assessee at any point of time. There is also nothing on record that assessee was offered any opportunity to cross examine said B.H. shah with regard to amount in question. The action of the Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty u/s 271D on the presumption that against the security of these cheques of Rs. 95,50,000/- the assessee must have taken equivalent amount of cash is not borne from the records. There is no concrete evidence to fact that such amount was in fact received in cash by the assessee except the statement of Shri B.H. Shah. General statement of third person cannot be valid basis for taking action against the assessee. As the penalty has been imposed only on the basis that against the security of cheques equivalent amount of cash might have been taken cash loans is not justified. Under the facts and circumstances penalty of Rs. 95,50,000/- was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). We uphold the same.
8. Next issue is with regards to enhancement of the penalty from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 23,50,000/-. This enhanced penalty has been opposed by assessee on merit alone. According to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the ground that the assessee had taken loans by way of bearer cheque which is violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act which was enhanced by CIT(A) to Rs. 23,50,000/- u/s 271D of the Act. The assessee claimed that he was under the bonafide impression that acceptance of loans by cheques is enough for compliance of the provisions of section 269SS. The acceptance of loans in cash/bearer cheques was due to the fact that it was not aware of the correct legal provisions. The ignorance of law can 5 be a reasonable cause as held by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Schell International (2005) 278 ITR 630 (Bom). The assessee submitted that in this background, the penalty is not justified same be deleted. On the other hand Ld. DR heavily relied on the decision of CIT(A) on the issue of enhancement of penalty under the provisions of section 271D of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act.
9. We find that the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of transactions carried out by the assessee through bearer cheques in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. which was enhanced to Rs. 23,50,000/- u/s 271D of the Act. This enhanced figure is not in dispute. Dispute is on merit alone as far as penalty u/s 271D of the Act is concerned. As stated above initially the penalty was imposed at Rs. 3,50,000/- for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. However, it was pointed out during the course of appellate proceedings that the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act was for amount of Rs. 23,50,000/-. It was admitted by the assessee that there was a mistake in computing figure at Rs. 23,50,000/- on this account. In fact the bearer cheques were received from Shri B.H. shah and his associate concern M/s. Prabha Traders for Rs. 23,50,000/-. As stated above, this figure has not been disputed by both the parties but dispute is on merit alone.
10. The stand of the assessee is that such a practice of taking loans through bearer cheques is being followed from year to year but same never pointed out by the auditors. It was further stated that Shri B.H. shah has acknowledged the loan and therefore, the transactions were genuine. The assessee also pleaded that he was ignorant that receipt of bearer cheques violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Transactions were during routine course of business and the genuineness of the transactions was not in doubt. So, penalty in question is not justified. On the other hand, learned DR supported the order of CIT(A) and strongly contended that ignorance of law is no excuse. So penalty in question be upheld.
11. After hearing submissions of both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Schell International (2005) 278 ITR 630 (Bom) has held that the assessee was not aware that under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, he was required to submit the statements within 30 days from the expiry of the relevant assessment year. As soon as he got the show cause notice, he submitted the statements. The explanation appeared to be reasonable and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal whereby the order of the penalty levied u/s 272A(2) and 285B of the Act was quashed.
12. We also find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) has observed as under:
"Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement : there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maula J. pointed out in Martindale v. Falkner (1846) 2 CB 706 : There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law : it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so..." Scrutton L.J. also once said : "It is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law; But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlam (1937) AC 473 (HL)'.... The fact is that there is no and never has been a presumption that every one knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse, a maxim of very different scope and application'"
13. We also find that in the case of ACIT Vs. Chandrakant Kashinath Kele (HUF) the Pune Bench of the Tribunal has decided similar issue by observing as under:
"On hearing the submissions of both the sides in the light of the factual matrix of the case and the precedents cited, we are of the considered view that there was a reasonable cause, due to which, the assessee was compelled to accept the loan through bearer cheque. Some of the findings on facts such as availability of a meager amount of a few hundred rupees as outstanding balance in the bank account of the assessee, definitely establish the financial constrains of the assessee. Another uncontroverted factual finding that the assessee had already issued cheques favouring afore mentioned three parties had to be honoured and to fulfill its commitment, the funds were urgently required, therefore, a bearer cheque was accepted, also leads to a conclusion that the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure, if any, hence entitled 6 for relief as prescribed u/s 273B of the Act. Now before us a decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has also been cited in the case of CIT Vs. Makhija Construction Co. 257 ITR page 8, wherein it was held that for a minor deviation on the part of the assessee, as otherwise the transaction appeared to be genuine, proper and bonafide, the penalty need not to be imposed in violation of section 269SS of I.T. Act. Taking a shelter of this decision we hereby hold that learned CIT(A) has rightly relied upon several other decisions as cited in the impugned appellate order, hence we hereby confirm his findings. This ground of the revenue has no force, hence dismissed."
Thus, appeal was decided in favour of assessee in case of Chandrakant K. Kele (HUF) (supra).
Similarly, in the case of Shiroli Budruk Krishak Seva Sangh in I.T.A. No. 1101/PN/2010 :
A.Y. 2006-07, dated 16-12-2010 it was held as under:
Considering the above submissions, there is no doubt that ignorance of law can always be treated a reasonable cause to justify the non-attraction of penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act but the legislature keeping in mind possibility of it has given discretion to the department u/s 273B of the Act, not to levy u/s 271D of the Act. Thus, for availing the benefit u/s 273B of the Act, the assessee is required to establish that there was reasonable cause for its failure in complying with the provisions of section 269T of the Act. In the present case, we do not find reason to doubt the above said reasonable cause furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities that it being a credit co- operative society dealing only with its members, was under impression that the provisions of sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act were inapplicable to it. This explanation finds strength from this very fact that neither the statutory auditors nor the tax auditors of the assessee society appraised it about the correct legal provisions in this regard, as submitted by the learned AR. In the case of CIT Vs. Eetahi Agencies (supra) there was failure to comply with the provisions of section 269T of the Act and penalty u/s 271E was levied. The Tribunal found that the assessee had committed violation of section 269T under a genuine belief that sec. 269T had no application to deposits and that it only applied to loans. The department preferred appeal against said order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court wherein, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to hold that the penalty was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. Again in the case of CIT Vs. Jayabhawani Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to uphold the decision of the Tribunal accepting reasonable cause u/s 273B in case of violation of the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act. The department had preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 322 ITR 12 (Statute). Respectfully following decisions of the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause with the assessee in nurturing a bonafide belief that the provisions of sec. 269T were not applicable in its case. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,01,031/- levied u/s 271D of the Act. The grounds raised are accordingly dismissed.
14. In view of above legal and factual discussions penalty in question is deleted because, the assessee was under bonafide impression that transaction by way of bearer cheque is not violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Moreover, this genuine transaction recorded in the books of account of the assessee. This point has not been raised even by the auditors as the same was done in the normal course of assessee's business since long. Before parting this decision, it is pertinent to mention that we are aware of the fact that in general, ignorance of law is no excuse but under certain circumstances it may be so. In the present case, ignorance of law may be defense, but one should be cautious while applying this proposition. It should be rarely used as specific circumstance. It is settled law that each case is decided in the facts and circumstances. It is also made clear that case laws relied on by both the parties have been taken into account, though same have not been specifically mentioned.
15. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed while appeal of assessee is allowed."
Following the aforesaid parity of reasoning, which is squarely applicable to the fact-situation before us, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income- 7 tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete penalty imposed under section 271D of the Act amounting to Rs 22 lakhs.
10. Thus, ITA No 304/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Finance & Investment, for the assessment year 1998-99 is allowed.
11. In so far as ITA Nos 305/PN/10 & 306/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Finance & Investment, for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the facts and circumstances are identical to those considered in ITA No 304/PN/10 in the earlier paras. Accordingly, our decision in ITA No. 304/PN/10 applies mutatis mutandis in these appeals also.
12. Resultantly, appeals in ITA Nos 305/PN/10 & 306/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Finance & Investment, for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000- 01 respectively are also allowed.
13. ITA No 332/PN/10 is an appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 11.11.2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 whereby a penalty of Rs 35 lakhs levied under section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act has been levied.
14. In this case, the Assessing Officer has levied a penalty of Rs 35 lakhs in terms of section 271D of the Act. The assessee firm was stated to have raised loans of Rs 10 lakhs from Shri Bhupendrakumar H. Shah and associates by way of bearer cheques, which was construed as a violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and accordingly, penalty of Rs 10 lakhs has been levied under section 271D of the Act The second component of the penalty of Rs 25 lakhs was in relation to the loans stated to have been raised by the assessee in cash from Shriram Soni and associates.
15. Before us, it was a common point between the parties that in so far as the levy of penalty in relation to loans of Rs 10 lakhs raised from Shri Bhupendrakumar H. Shah by bearer cheques are concerned, the facts and 8 circumstances are identical to those considered by us in ITA No 304/PN/10 in the case of the assessee M/s Sneh Finance & Investment for the assessment year 1998-99. As a result thereof, following our decision in ITA No 304/PN/10, herein also, the penalty is directed to be deleted.
16. In so far as the penalty of Rs 25 lakhs in relation to the loans stated to have been raised in cash from Shriram Soni is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that the same is also not maintainable. In this regard, it was pointed out that in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has raised a loan of Rs 25 lakhs from Shriram Soni, which was not recorded in the account books and it was received in cash. In the course of penalty proceedings, the same was construed as a violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. The learned Counsel pointed out that the dispute raised in the assessment proceedings travelled to the Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01 vide ITA No 521/PN/10 dated 31.5.2011, whereby it was held that the seized material does not prove raising of any unaccounted loan of Rs 25 lakhs from Shriram Soni and, therefore, addition thereof was deleted. It is submitted that once it is held that there is no unaccounted loan of Rs 25 lakhs raised, there would not arise a question of violation of provisions of section 269SS and accordingly, the impugned penalty is liable to be dismissed.
17. In response, the learned Departmental Representative, appearing for the Revenue, however, submitted that the lower authorities have adequately brought out that the assessee has raised a loan of Rs 25 lakhs from Shriram Soni in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, though the factual matrix brought out by the learned Counsel in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No 521/PN/10 dated 31.5.2011 (supra) has not been disputed.
18. In this connection, we have carefully considered the rival submissions and find that the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.5.2011 (supra) has not upheld the stand of the Revenue that the assessee has raised any unaccounted loan of Rs 25 lakhs from Shriram Soni during the year under consideration. As a result 9 thereof, there would not arise the necessity to examine the efficacy of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, since there is no loan shown to have been raised by the assessee from Shriram Soni. Consequent to the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No 521/PN/10 dated 31.5.2011, we therefore hold that the impugned imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act amounting to Rs 25 lakhs is unsustainable.
19. Thus, ITA No 332/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Finance & Investment for the assessment year 2001-02 is allowed.
20. ITA No 333/PN/10 is an appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 25.11.2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04 whereby a penalty of Rs 47,50,000/- levied under section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act has been sustained.
21. Before us, it was a common point between the parties that in so far as the levy of penalty in relation to loans of Rs 41 lakhs raised from Shri Bhupendrakumar H. Shah by bearer cheques are concerned, the facts and circumstances are identical to those considered by us in ITA No 304/PN/10 in the case of the assessee M/s Sneh Finance & Investment for the assessment year 1998-99. As a result thereof, following our decision in ITA No 304/PN/10, herein also, the penalty is directed to be deleted.
22. In so far as the levy of penalty of Rs 6,50,000/- is concerned, the same is in relation to loan stated to have been received from Shri Bhupendrakumar H Shah by bearer cheques. On this aspect, the learned Counsel submitted that this is in consequence of a finding in the assessment proceedings that the assessee has raised such loan, which was not recorded in the account books. The learned Counsel submitted that in the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that no such loan has indeed been raised and the matter travelled to the Tribunal by way of appeal in ITA No 525/PN/10 dated 21.2.2011 whereby the issue has been remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. It 10 was, therefore, submitted that even the impugned issue be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a decision afresh.
23. To the aforesaid prayer of the learned Counsel based on the decision of the Tribunal dated 21.2.2011 (supra), the learned Departmental Representative has not raised any serious dispute.
24. It is evident from the precedent in the assessee's own case dated 21.2.2011 (supra) that the issue as to whether the assessee has raised loan of Rs 6,50,000/- from Shri B. H. Shah has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination afresh. The applicability of section 269SS of the Act would therefore depend on the final adjudication in the assessment proceedings and as a result thereof, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after finalization of assessment set aside by the Tribunal in the impugned assessment year.
25. In the result, ITA No 333/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Finance & Investment, for the assessment years 2003-04 is allowed.
26. ITA No 330/PN/10 is an appeal in the case of M/s Sneh Property Development P. Ltd., directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) dated 16.11.2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01 whereby a penalty of Rs 5 lakhs levied under section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act has been levied.
27. Before us, it was a common point between the parties that in so far as the levy of penalty in relation to loan of Rs 5 lakhs raised from Shri Bhupendrakumar H. Shah by bearer cheques is concerned, the facts and circumstances are identical to those considered by us in ITA No 304/PN/10 in the case of the assessee M/s Sneh Finance & Investment for the assessment year 1998-99. As a result thereof, following our decision in ITA No 304/PN/10, herein also, the penalty is directed to be deleted.
11
28. In the result, ITA No 330/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Property Development P. Ltd., for the assessment year 2000-01 is allowed.
29. ITA No 331/PN/10 is an appeal in the case of M/s Sneh Property Development P. Ltd., directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) dated 25.11.2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01 whereby a penalty of Rs 15 lakhs levied under section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act has been levied.
30. Before us, it was a common point between the parties that in so far as the levy of penalty in relation to loan of Rs 3,50,000/- raised from Shri Bhupendrakumar H. Shah by bearer cheques is concerned, the facts and circumstances are identical to those considered by us in ITA No 304/PN/10 in the case of the assessee M/s Sneh Finance & Investment for the assessment year 1998-99. As a result thereof, following our decision in ITA No 304/PN/10, herein also, the penalty of Rs 3,50,000/- is directed to be deleted.
31. In so far as the penalty of Rs 11,50,000/- is concerned, the same relates to amounts said to have been borrowed by the assessee from Shri B.H. Shah and group concerns. The case set-up by the Assessing Officer is that in the course of search proceedings in the case of Shri B.H. Shah, several blank cheques with amounts and dates mentioned on them belonging to Sneh group including the assessee were found which aggregated to Rs 1,10,00,000/-. As per the Revenue, handing over of these cheques to Shri B H Shah the lender, led to a presumption that equivalent amounts were borrowed by the assessee other than by way of modes prescribed under section 269SS of the Act. Details of such amounts are contained in para 9.6 of the penalty order and in so far as the assessee is concerned, such amounts totalled to Rs 11,50,000/-. On this count, penalty under section 271D has been levied.
32. Before us, the learned Counsel pointed out that in the case of M/s Sneh Builders, penalty has been levied on similar fact-situation, as is evident from the 12 details contained in para 9.6 of the penalty order. Such penalty was considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sneh Builders in ITA No 520/PN/10 (supra).
33. Following the parity of reasoning given in the case of M/s Sneh Builders in ITA No 520/PN/10 (supra), we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete penalty imposed under section 271D of the Act amounting to Rs 11,50,000/-.
34. In the result, ITA No 331/PN/10 in the case of M/s Sneh Property Development P. Ltd., for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed.
34. As result, all the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on the 29th Day of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(I.C. SUDHIR) (G.S. PANNU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Pune: Dated: 29th July, 2011
B
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1. Assessee
2. Department
3. The CIT(A)-IV Pune
4. The CIT, Cen. Pune
5. The D.R, 'B' Bench, Pune
6. Guard File
"True copy"
By order
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune