IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,. Appellant Aurangabad. Versus Shri Popatlal M. Chordia, Aurangabad.. Respondent Mr Alok Sharma, Advocate for appellant Mr Vakil, Advocate for respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATED: 21.01.2015 P.C. : 1. This appeal challenges judgment and order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, Bench B, Pune, in Income Tax Appeals No. 711/PN/2011. By this judgment, appeal of respondent herein was allowed and explanation he submitted on facts was accepted to avert penalty proceedings. 2. In brief, facts of these cases are as under: Uploaded on - 22/01/2015 Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 14:51:10 2 ita38.14 In search and seizure proceeding, Assessing Officer found certain entries in certain books of accounts. Assessing Officer recorded statements of assessee s son about entries and he disclosed that certain persons advanced loans to assessee in cash, and in due course of time, amounts were returned. Subsequently, assessee took stand that amounts which he received from those two persons were not loans. They were earnest amount which he had received towards oral agreement for sale of certain property. authorities below did not accept this stand and held that respondent/ assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271 D and 271 E of Income Tax Act. In appeals filed by assessee, ITAT held that in facts and circumstances of cases as well as in view of harsh nature of section 271 of Income Tax Act, they were more inclined to accept explanation given by assessee than statements of his son, which was recorded earlier. Uploaded on - 22/01/2015 Downloaded on - 04/07/2020 14:51:10 3 ita38.14 3. Since case was decided on facts, we decline to take different view though it is possible. There is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. [V.K. JADHAV, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad v. Popatlal M. Chordia