Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-3 v. Deepak Ambalal Shah
[Citation -2017-LL-0725-36]

Citation 2017-LL-0725-36
Appellant Name Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-3
Respondent Name Deepak Ambalal Shah
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags waiver of penalty • cash loan • repayment of loan • loan transaction • foreign exchange • family
Bot Summary: The CIT as well as the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer accepting the assessee's explanation for receiving cash loans and repayment of loans in cash. The CIT as well as Tribunal accepted the contention that the assessee was in the business of international ticketing, visa consultancy, arrangement of foreign exchange etc. In course of which business, sometime, the assessee would require urgent cash for payments for airlines tickets, visa charges on behalf of the clients. The assessee had raised such amounts through belongings from family members and known companies. We also notice that the assessee had pointed out that the component of cash loans received and repaid were extremely small compared to the total amounts received and repaid by the assessee. It is pointed out that from one Rajul Shah, the assessee received loan of Rs. 21.95 lacs but received only Rs. 25000/- out of it in cash. In case of Planet Aviation Pvt. Ltd, the assessee received amount of Rs. 1.37 crores during the year under consideration of which only Rs. 11.86 lacs was received in cash.


O/TAXAP/523/2017 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 523 of 2017 With TAX APPEAL NO. 521 of 2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD - 3....Appellant(s) Versus DEEPAK AMBALAL SHAH....Opponent(s) Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SN DIVATIA, ADVOCATE for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 25/07/2017 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in these two tax appeals against judgement of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.05.2016 raising following question for our consideration: Whether in facts and circumstances of case, learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in upholding decision of CIT (A) deleting penalty of Rs. 16,26,483/- levied under section 271D of Income Tax Act for contravention of provisions of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act? 2. issues pertain to imposition of penalties under sections Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 10 15:36:53 IST 2019 O/TAXAP/523/2017 ORDER 271D and 271E of Act for alleged breaches of provisions contained in sections 269SS and 269T of Act. CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal deleted penalty imposed by Assessing Officer accepting assessee's explanation for receiving cash loans and repayment of loans in cash. CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal accepted contention that assessee was in business of international ticketing, visa consultancy, arrangement of foreign exchange etc. in course of which business, sometime, assessee would require urgent cash for payments for airlines tickets, visa charges on behalf of clients. assessee had raised such amounts through belongings from family members and known companies. There was no intention to breach provisions of law. We find that authorities have applied their minds and Tribunal confirmed view of CIT (Appeals) accepting explanation of assessee. We also notice that assessee had pointed out that component of cash loans received and repaid were extremely small compared to total amounts received and repaid by assessee. For example, it is pointed out that from one Rajul Shah, assessee received loan of Rs. 21.95 lacs but received only Rs. 25000/- out of it in cash. Likewise, in case of Planet Aviation Pvt. Ltd, assessee received amount of Rs. 1.37 crores during year under consideration of which only Rs. 11.86 lacs was received in cash. Considering such facts, we do not find any reason to interfere. Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 10 15:36:53 IST 2019 O/TAXAP/523/2017 ORDER 3. Tax Appeals are therefore dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) Jyoti Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 10 15:36:53 IST 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-3 v. Deepak Ambalal Shah
Report Error