The Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad v. Popatlal M. Chordia
[Citation -2015-LL-0119-53]
Citation | 2015-LL-0119-53 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | The Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad |
Respondent Name | Popatlal M. Chordia |
Court | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD |
Relevant Act | Income-tax |
Date of Order | 19/01/2015 |
Judgment | View Judgment |
Keyword Tags | search and seizure proceeding • substantial question of law • agreement for sale • penalty |
Bot Summary: | By these judgments, the appeals of the respondent herein were allowed and the explanation he submitted on facts was accepted to avert penalty proceedings. In brief, the facts of these cases are as under: - In search and seizure proceeding, the Assessing Officer found certain entries in certain books of accounts. The Assessing Officer recorded statements of assessee s son about the entries and he disclosed that certain persons advanced loans Uploaded on - 21/01/2015 Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 14:46:13 3 ITA41. 2014 to the assessee in cash, and in due course of time, the amounts were returned. Subsequently, the assessee took a stand that the amounts which he received from those two persons were not loans. The authorities below did not accept this stand and held that the respondent / assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271 D and 271 E of the Income Tax Act. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the ITAT held that in the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as in view of the harsh nature of section 271 of the Income Tax Act, they were more inclined to accept the explanation given by the assessee than the statements of his son, which was recorded earlier. |