Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, CHENNAI V. Jt. CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 200/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 20021714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VISWANATHAN
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Competent authority

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.200/MDS/2014 & 271/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI V. RAMAKRISHNAN NO.5/1 THIRD STREET THIRUVALLUR NAGAR KOTTUR CHENNAI 600 085 VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BUSINESS RANGE II CHENNAI [PAN AAIPR 0074 P ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. VISWANATHAN, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 0 6 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 0 7 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS)(CENTRAL)- I, CHENNAI, DATED 26.11.2013 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI R. VISWANATHAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED IN CASH AND REPAID BY CASH. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR EXECUTING CIVIL WORK TO THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND CO RPORATION OF CHENNAI. THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO BORROW MONEY TO MEET THE PAYMENT TO THE LABOURER. SOMETIMES THE OVERDRAFT L IMIT GRANTED BY THE BANK ALSO EXCEEDED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HA S TO NECESSARILY BORROW FUNDS IN CASH. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE, THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND CORPORATION OF CHENNAI TAKES 3-4 MONTHS TO PAY THE CONTRACT AMOUNT. THEREFORE, WHENEVER THERE WAS A SHORTAGE FOR PAYMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES AND WAGES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO RECEIVE THE SAME IN CASH. 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONA L GROUND WITH REGARD TO LIMITATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEED INGS U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATI VE, THE JT. CIT PASSED THE PENALTY ORDER ON 25.10.2012. REFERRING T O THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 MADE A REFER ENCE ABOUT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS SEPARATELY FOR LEVYIN G PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SECTION 275(1)(C ), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN G HAS TO BE ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 3 -: COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MON TH IN WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS INITIATED. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, ACTION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U /S 271D AND 271E WERE INITIATED ON 23.12.2011 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ITSELF, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE JCIT ON 25.10.2012 IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE PLAC ED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LO DHA BUILDERS & OTHERS IN I.T.A.NO.476/MDS/2014 ETC DATED 27.6.2014 AND SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE MUMBAI BENCH FO UND THAT THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDE D TO MAKE A REFERRAL TO THE ADDL. CIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY HAS T O BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E COULD BE LEVIED ONLY BY THE JT. COMMISSIONER AND NOT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT INITIATE AN Y PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE OFFICER W HO IS EMPOWERED TO LEVY PENALTY HAS TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S. REFERRING TO SECTIONS 271D(2) AND 271E(2) OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT PENALTY IMPOSABLE U/S 271D AND 271E SHALL BE IMPOS ED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THEREFORE, THE REFEREN CE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHO IS AD MITTEDLY NOT ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 4 -: COMPETENT TO LEVY PENALTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS INIT IATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHO IS COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO INIT IATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E O F THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PENALTY HAS TO BE LEVIED ONLY BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THE OFFICER WHO IS BEL OW IN RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS NOT EMPOWERED TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE MUMBA I BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LODHA BUILDERS (SUPRA). THE MUMBAI BENCH FOUND THAT THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U /S 271D AND 271E WOULD AMOUNT TO INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. IN FACT, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LODHA BUILDERS (SU PRA) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 22. IN THE INSTANT CASE , I T I S AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AS SE SSIN G OFFIC ER DISCUSSED THE DETAILS AS TO THE V I OLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT ALSO CONTAINS A REFERENCE TO T HE REQUIRE MENT OF MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE ADDL. CIT , CR - 6, MUMBAI FOR NECESSARY ACTION. PARA E OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER , WHICH IS ALREADY EXTRACTED ABOVE PARAS, BEARS WITNES S TO ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 5 -: THE ABOVE FINDI NGS. FURTHER, TO GIVE EFFECT TO HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO WROTE A LETTER TO THE ADDL . CIT ON 11 . 1 . 2012, INTIMATING TO HIM ABOUT THE VIOLATION TO THE SAI D PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . ON RECEIPT OF THE SAID REFERENCE FROM THE AO, ADDL . CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 15.2.2012 CALLING FOR EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PENALTY U/S 271D SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. EVENTU A LLY, ADDL, CIT PASSED A PENALTY ORDER U/S 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 28.9.2012 . CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DATED 5.12.20 11 AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 275(1) OF THE ACT, 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS INITIATED EXPIRES ON 30 . 6 . 2012. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF LIMITATION U/S 275(2) , EXPLANATION 1 READ WITH SECTIO N 1 29 OF THE ACT, EXTENDED LIMITATION EXPIRES ON 30.7.2012 AGAINST THE ABOVE DUE DATES, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL CIT ON 28.9.2012, WHICH IS BARRED B Y THE LIMITATION . THUS, THE OR DE RS OF THE PENALTY OF THIS KIND HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 275(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS THE SUMMARY OF THE D ECISION CITED ABOVE THAT ANY CASE WHERE AO MADE A REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD E R, AFTER DISCUSSING THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR MADE A REFERRAL TO THE ADDITIONAL. CIT FOR IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY. IN OUR OPINION, THESE PRELIMINARY ACTS CONSTITUTE 'ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY'. AN ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS ALWAYS ANTER IOR IN TIME TO THE 'ACTUAL' IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN OUR OPINION, THE AO'S DISCUSSI ON GIVEN IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AO'S LETTER DATED 6 TO THE ADDL, CIT CONSTITUTES 'ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY' . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD SUCCEED ON THE LEGAL ISSUE . ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. WE FIND THAT THE CHANDIGARH SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DEWAN CHAND AMRIT LAL VS DCIT [2006] 28 3 ITR (AT) 203, HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE. TH E SPECIAL BENCH, ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 6 -: AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COU RT IN CIT VS DHADI SAHU [1993] 199 ITR 610, HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN DICATE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO FIND OUT AS TO WHO IS THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D. T HE AUTHORITY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS THE DEPUTY C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (NOW THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX). THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 2710 OR 271E IS NOT COM- PETENT TO IMPOSE PENALTY. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY, A CRU CIAL QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHE THER HE COULD HAVE INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT MA Y BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT SECTION 274(2) PROVIDES FOR F INANCIAL LIMIT FOR THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN THE EVENT OF THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE BEING MORE TH AN THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 274(2), THE PREVIOUS APP ROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED. SECTION 274(2), AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT FROM APRIL 1, 1971, PROVID ED A REFERENCE TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EXCEEDING RS. 1,000. THUS, THERE WAS A PROVISION FOR REFERENCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT PENALTY HAD TO BE INI TIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEREAS T HE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD COMMITTED THE DEFAULT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE AUTHORITY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS GIVEN TO TH E INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR WHICH A REFER ENCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO HIM. THIS SYSTEM HAS SINCE B EEN WITHDRAWN. AS PER THE MODIFIED SECTION 274, THE AUTHO RITY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS VESTED WITH THE CONCERNED OFFICERS. HOWEVER, WHERE THE PENALTY EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIED LIM ITS, PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED. ANOTHER FACTOR THAT DESERVES CONSIDERATION IS THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE COU RSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 IS COMPARED WITH SECTION 271D/271E, THE DISTINCTION I S PROMINENTLY VISIBLE. UNDER SECTION 271, RECORDING OF ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 7 -: SATISFACTION BEFORE INITIATION OF PENALTY IN THE CO URSE OF PROCEEDINGS IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR SPECIFIED DEFAULTS. UNDER SECTIONS 271D AND 271E, T HERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 IS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), AS THE CASE MAY BE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AUTHORITY FOR I MPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIONS 271D AND 271E IS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WHICH HAS LATER ON BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION 271, THEIR LO RDSHIPS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CA SE OF CIT V. MUNISH IRON STORE [2003] 263 ITR 484, HELD THAT THE JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 FLOW S FROM RECORDING OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKE N BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VIKAS PROMOTERS P. LTD. [2005] 277 ITR 337 AND EARLIER IN SOME OTHER CASES. HOWEVER, THESE DECISIONS LOSE SIGNIFICANCE WHEN WE COMPARE T HE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 271D AN D 271E VIS- A-VIS THAT OF SECTION 271. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE LAN GUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED FOR THE DEFAULTS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 271 IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEFAU LTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTIONS 271D AND 271E. AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DHADI SAHU [1993] 199 ITR 610, AND IN THE CASE OF VARKEY CHACKO V. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 (SC), THE VALIDITY OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS GOT TO BE SEEN WITH REFE RENCE TO THE AUTHORITY EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY ON TH E RELEVANT DATE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D AND 271E IS AN OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT NOT BELOW THE RANK OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS WERE ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 8 -: INITIATED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX B Y ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 4.4.2012. THEREFORE, THE JT. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WHO IS COMPETENT TO INITIATE THE PROCEE DINGS, PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY ON 25.10.2012 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTIC E WAS ISSUED FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DEWAN CHAND AMR IT LAL (SUPRA), THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF LODHA BUILDERS (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 9. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THIS CASE, SHRI R. VISW ANATHAN, LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A CIVIL CONTRACTOR EXECUTING CORPORATION CONTRACTS AND RAILWAY CONTRAC TS. WHENEVER THE OVERDRAFT LIMIT GRANTED BY THE BANK EXCEEDED, THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED MONEY FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE LABOURERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY THAT THE NE T CASH TRANSACTIONS ARE WITHIN ` 20,000/- ONLY. THE DETAILS OF THE CASH RECEIPTS A ND PAYMENTS ARE FILED AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FR OM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE LOA N WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAME PERSON OR FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 9 -: 269SS MODE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING CERTAIN LOANS AND DEPOSITS NO PERSON SHALL, AFTER THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984, TAKE OR ACCEPT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON (HEREAFT ER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE DEPOSITOR) ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE O R ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF,- (A) THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT; OR (B) ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED EARLIER BY SUCH PERSON FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS REMAINING UNPAID (WHETHER REPAYMENT HAS FALLEN DUE OR NOT), THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID; OR (C) THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) IS [TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES] OR MORE: 10. THE ABOVE PROVISION CLEARLY SAYS THAT WHEN THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT RECEIVED OTHER THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ANY ELECTRONIC CLEARA NCE SYSTEM, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ` 20,000/- OR MORE, SHALL BE TREATED AS VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY THAT THE NET CASH TRANSACTION DOES NOT EX CEED ` 20,000/-. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT WAS RECEIV ED FROM THE VERY SAME PERSON. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO A PARTICULAR INDI VIDUAL EXCEEDING ITA NOS.200/14 & 271/15 :- 10 -: ` 20,000/-. IT IS ALSO NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE AGGREG ATE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS LOAN EXCEEDED ` 20,000/- ON A PARTICULAR DAY FROM A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAI LS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF PENALTY U/S 271D AN D 271E ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE DETAILS OF LOANS SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS SAID TO BE MADE TO THE INDIVIDUALS AND TH EREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD OF JULY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 03 RD JULY, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF