Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.63 seconds)Sh. Chandrma Singh, 02/334, Uit Colony, ... vs Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-2, Alwar, ... on 11 April, 2022
8. The solitary issue involved in the present appeal relates to levying of penalty of
Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act. DEPAR
8.1 For better appreciation of the facts involved in respect of the issue under
dispute, reference was made to the ITAT's order passed in the appellant's case.
The facts emanating from the Hon'ble ITAT's order in ITA No 669/JP/2018 Dated
20.12.2018 passed by ITAT Jaipur, "B" Bench are summarized here under
8
ITA No. 734/JP/2024
Sh. Balbir Singh , Alwar vs. ACIT
8.2 The assessee had entered into agreement on 12.12.2012 for transfer of land to
one Smt. Maya Devi and had received advance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. However, the
Assessing Officer observed that the alleged agreement was notarized only on
20.06.2013 and the payment was made on 11.04.2013, 22.04.2013 and
20.06.2013. He further noted that there were no records substantiating any
payments made prior to the alleged agreement 12.12.2012. And thus the AO was
of the opinion that the document dated 12.12.2012 is an after thought to give a
color to the transaction of the loan as advance against property. Accordingly, the
fact that the agreement in question was claimed to have been executed on
12.12.2012 and the same was notarized only on 20.06.2013 shows that this
agreement was prepared subsequently by using old stamp paper to give the color
of sale of property. Thus, the AO considered the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received
by the appellant from Mrs. Maya Devi as loan and accordingly penalty proceedings
u/s 271D of the Act for violating the provisions of section 26955 of the Act and
penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 2710 of the Act was levied vide order dated
17.05.2017. The Ld. CIT appeal however accepted the transactions as advance
received against the sale of property and accordingly deleted the penalty of Rs.
1,00,00,000/-