For this reason, within the CIT against I.P. India (P.) Ltd. 16 taxmann 407 (Delhi), DHC stored if such screening is used the fresh receipt out of express software monies about around three private minimal enterprises to own allocation off shares on assessee-business can not be handled since receipt off mortgage or deposit.
Other behavior in which this has been kept you to definitely Express software monies acquired when you look at the dollars would not matter either so you’re able to a loan otherwise put is actually VLS Meals (P
Since the display app money gotten by assessee is addressed because undisclosed money, punishment procedures could not had been initiated significantly less than part 269SS comprehend which have section 271D of your own Money-income tax Act, 1961. CIT versus Roentgen. P. Singh and you may Co. Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 0217 (Del) .
Whether or not areas 269SS and you can 269T utilize the conditions “if not than just because of the a keen accountpayee cheque otherwise membership payee financial write”new told you specifications should hit onlycash transactions (given that clear of CBDT Round Zero. 387 dated. 6-7-1984) i.elizabeth. ifthere is actually purchases which happen to be “if not than simply from the a free account payee cheque oraccount payee financial draft” nevertheless they don’t encompass any path of money, the fresh saidtransactions would not be strike of the aforementioned terms due to the fact demonstratedhereunder.
Within the CIT versus. Noida Cost Bridge Co. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260 (Delhi) it was heldthat when zero fee is done during the cash, nevertheless exact same are effected of the journalentry during the books off membership out of assessee and there’s zero ticket of section269SS so as in order to warrant penalty u/s 271D. Govind Ku) https://perfectloans24.com/payday-loans-fl/jacksonville/ 253 ITR 103 (Raj).
During the Asst. CIT vs. Jag Vijay Car Funds (P.) Ltd. (2001) 78 ITD 378 (Jp.)it had been stored that the head object out-of point 269SS are so you’re able to restrict the machine oftaking unaccounted cash otherwise unaccounted dumps if you don’t than just by the anaccount payee cheque or membership payee draft.
Although the non-payments beneath the aforementioned areas would usually stick out during the time of evaluation process merely, these types of punishment legal proceeding are separate out-of analysis procedures. Even initiation of these legal proceeding is separate of testing procedures and you can hence section 275 has actually experienced radical alter to address for example legal proceeding.
Where in fact the number wastransferred from the places as a result of transfer vouchers, brand new quantity inquestion might be thought to were paid within the the business’s lender accountthrough right banking channels as per spirit out of area 269SS and you may, therefore, theassessee organization couldn’t feel considered possess broken new conditions out of section269SS
Punishment procedures lower than part 271D or 271E was basically independent process and you will got nothing to do with review proceedings or their consequences. For this reason, CIT(A) wasn’t justified in the cancelling the latest commands towering punishment for the surface that investigations process, throughout and that, punishment around part 271D and you can 271E was indeed initiated had been held is incorrect.
Assessee on the is attractive ahead of CIT(A) contended you to definitely the research purchases where the penalty legal proceeding below area 271D and you may 271E had been initiated were quashed and therefore the fresh new sales imposing punishment around part 271D and you can 271E might also want to getting quashed. CIT(A) acknowledged this new assertion and you can quashed the newest requests towering penalty. It was stored one to as much as imposition away from penalty under point 271D or 271E are worried, those individuals was indeed independent legal proceeding and having nothing to do with testing legal proceeding or its result. Hence, CIT(A) wasn’t justified in cancelling the newest instructions towering punishment to your floor that the research proceedings, during the course of hence, punishment lower than point 271D and you will 271E was indeed initiated is stored to get incorrect. Apart from the fact that your order carrying new assessments to end up being invalid hadn’t be latest, CIT(A) cannot has terminated the latest purchases towering punishment about this floor. As the, CIT(A) had not adjudicated the problem into the deserves, just the right course is to remit issue from imposition regarding penalty towards the CIT(A) to possess new attention, making every aspect open (Relevant Review Years : 2009-2010 to help you 2011-12) – [DCIT v. C. Gangadhara Murthy – Time out of Reasoning : (ITAT Bangalore)].