Therefore, within the CIT versus We.P. Asia (P.) Ltd. sixteen taxmann 407 (Delhi), DHC stored that when these evaluation is applied brand new receipt from express app funds on the about three individual limited companies to own allowance of shares from the assessee-providers cannot be addressed just like the acknowledgment away from loan or put.
Other conclusion by which it’s been stored you to definitely Share software funds received inside the bucks won’t matter either so you’re able to that loan or put was VLS Dinners (P
Just like the share application currency gotten from the assessee is actually treated just like the undisclosed earnings, penalty proceedings cannot have been started not as much as section 269SS discover that have section 271D of your own Income-income tax Act, 1961. CIT versus R. P. Singh and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 0217 (Del) .
Though sections 269SS and you may 269T use the terms “if not than just by an enthusiastic accountpayee cheque otherwise account payee financial write”the said arrangements are supposed to struck onlycash transactions (just like the obvious from CBDT Round Zero. 387 dated. 6-7-1984) we.age. ifthere was deals which are “or even than because of the a merchant account payee cheque oraccount payee lender draft” however they don’t encompass one course of money, the newest saidtransactions wouldn’t be hit by the aforesaid terms once the demonstratedhereunder.
Inside the CIT compared to. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260 (Delhi) it had been heldthat whenever no payment is created within the bucks, nevertheless the same was effected from the journalentry when you look at the instructions out of membership of assessee and there’s zero violation out-of section269SS so as to guarantee penalty u/s 271D. Govind Ku) 253 ITR 103 (Raj).
In the Asst. CIT vs. Jag Vijay Auto Loans (P.) Ltd. (2001) 78 ITD 378 (Jp.)it absolutely was held that the fundamental target regarding section 269SS try so you can avoid the system oftaking unaccounted dollars or unaccounted dumps if you don’t than just from the anaccount payee cheque or membership payee draft.
Although the non-payments in aforesaid sections do typically stick out during the time of review proceedings merely, such punishment proceedings try independent out of comparison legal proceeding. Even initiation of them procedures try separate away from analysis proceedings and you can which point 275 keeps experienced drastic alter to handle such process.
The spot where the matter wastransferred because of the places due to import coupon codes, new numbers inquestion could well be considered have been paid inside the business’s financial accountthrough right banking avenues as per spirit out-of section 269SS and you will, thus, theassessee company couldn’t end up being considered has violated the brand new terms of section269SS
Penalty proceedings less than part 271D otherwise 271E have been independent process and had nothing in connection with testing legal proceeding or their benefit. Ergo, CIT(A) wasn’t justified into the cancelling the new instructions imposing penalty to the ground your review process, throughout and therefore, punishment lower than area 271D and 271E were started had been stored getting invalid.
Assessee about appeals ahead of CIT(A) debated that that investigations commands in which the penalty process less than part 271D and you will 271E was in fact started had been quashed and therefore the requests towering punishment under part 271D and you may 271E also needs to be quashed. CIT(A) approved the brand new assertion and you will quashed new instructions imposing penalty. It absolutely was held you to as far as imposition of penalty less than part 271D or 271E installment loans online Massachusetts are worried, the individuals was indeed independent procedures and achieving nothing to do with assessment process otherwise its consequences. Ergo, CIT(A) wasn’t warranted inside cancelling the new instructions towering punishment for the crushed your evaluation proceedings, for the duration of hence, penalty under section 271D and you can 271E was started is kept to get invalid. Besides the proven fact that your order carrying the newest examination in order to be incorrect had not be latest, CIT(A) should not features cancelled the fresh instructions imposing penalty about surface. Just like the, CIT(A) had not adjudicated the challenge into deserves, just the right course will be to remit issue out of imposition out of punishment on the CIT(A) to own fresh believe, leaving all facets open (Related Research Decades : 2009-2010 so you’re able to 2011-12) – [DCIT v. C. Gangadhara Murthy – Big date out-of Judgement : (ITAT Bangalore)].
