A.S. Diamonds (India) (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Thamira Green Farm (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 6640 (Chen-Trib)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 763 (Srt-Trib) IN THE ITAT SURAT A. L. SAINI, A.M. A.S. Diamonds (India) (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT ITA Nos. 759 and 760/SRT/2023 14 February, 2024 Assessee by: P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER *A. L. Saini, A.M. Captioned two appeals filed by single assessee, pertaining to same Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short NFAC/learned commissioner (appeals)), both dated 7-9-2023, which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), both dated 9-2-2018. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals pertain to same assessment year and same assessee, therefore both these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First, I shall take assessees appeal in ITA No. No.759/SRT/2023*, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the levying penalty of Rs. 24,00,000 under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the commissioner (appeals) or Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinct facts qua the issue are that assessee before us is a Private Limited Company. While passing assessment order in the case of assessee, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had passed entries in its books relating to unsecured loan of Rs. 24,00,000 received from Shri Mahesh Damjibhai Desai, director of the assessee-company, during the year under consideration. The said amount was deposited in the bank account of the assessee amounting Rs. 24,00,000 during the year. Therefore, Assessing Officer noted that the unsecured loan received during the year under consideration attract provision of section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, assessee was liable for penalty to be levied under section 271D of the Act. In this connection, a notice under section 271D was issued to the assessee on 27-12-2017 and show cause notice was also issued by the assessing officer, stating that as to why, an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 269SS read with section 271D of the Act. 5. In response, the assessee did not file any submission before the assessing officer. On perusal of assessment record, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the unsecured loans were received from Shri Amit R Shah and Shital A Shah, directors of assessee-company of Rs. 11,00,000 and 13,00,000 respectively, during the year, the details of the loans are as follows: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 763 (Srt-Trib)

IN THE ITAT SURAT

A. L. SAINI, A.M.

A.S. Diamonds (India) (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

ITA Nos. 759 and 760/SRT/2023

14 February, 2024

Assessee by: P.M. Jagasheth, CA

Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

ORDER

A. L. Saini, A.M.

Captioned two appeals filed by single assessee, pertaining to same Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short NFAC/learned commissioner (appeals)), both dated 7-9-2023, which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), both dated 9-2-2018.

2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals pertain to same assessment year and same assessee, therefore both these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. First, I shall take assessees appeal in ITA No. No.759/SRT/2023, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the levying penalty of Rs. 24,00,000 under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the commissioner (appeals) or Assessing Officer.

3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper.

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

4. Succinct facts qua the issue are that assessee before us is a Private Limited Company. While passing assessment order in the case of assessee, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had passed entries in its books relating to unsecured loan of Rs. 24,00,000 received from Shri Mahesh Damjibhai Desai, director of the assessee-company, during the year under consideration. The said amount was deposited in the bank account of the assessee amounting Rs. 24,00,000 during the year. Therefore, Assessing Officer noted that the unsecured loan received during the year under consideration attract provision of section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, assessee was liable for penalty to be levied under section 271D of the Act. In this connection, a notice under section 271D was issued to the assessee on 27-12-2017 and show cause notice was also issued by the assessing officer, stating that as to why, an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 269SS read with section 271D of the Act.

5. In response, the assessee did not file any submission before the assessing officer. On perusal of assessment record, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the unsecured loans were received from Shri Amit R Shah and Shital A Shah, directors of assessee-company of Rs. 11,00,000 and 13,00,000 respectively, during the year, the details of the loans are as follows: