Lokmangal Super Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Additional Commissoner of Income-tax,

ITA 2053/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1098 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DHEERAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Gift; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013 $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 LOKMANGAL SUPER BAZAR PVT. LTD., 193, GOLD FINCH PETH, PUNE PAN : AAACL9306R ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, SOLAPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE REVENUE BY : DR. DHEERAJ JAIN / DATE OF HEARING : 21-07-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-09-2015 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE CO NFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271D AND 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED18-10-2013. 2 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IS RUNNING SUPE R BAZAAR (MULTI UTILITY STORE) UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LOKMANGA L SUPER BAZAAR AT SOLAPUR. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 27-10-2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,59,265/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPT ED DEPOSITS IN CASH FROM ITS CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED DISCOUNTS AGAINST THE PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF DEPOSITS MADE BY THE RESPECT IVE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REPAID SOME OF THE DEPOSITS IN C ASH ALONG WITH INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE, THE ASSESS EE HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSITS IN CASH AND HAS REPAID THE SAME IN C ASH, THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. THE TOTAL DEPOSITS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CA SH WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.22,45,000/- AND THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CA SH AMOUNTED TO RS.12,65,000/-. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271D AND 271E WERE INITIATED FOR CONTRAVENING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 269SS AND 269T RESPECTIVELY. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-II, SOLAPUR DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 271D R.W.S. 269SS AND NOTICE ISSUED U/S . 271E R.W.S. 269T NOR ANY REPLY WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DATED 07-07-2010. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTIN G THE DEPOSITS IN CASH AND REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH, THE ADDL. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS, BOTH DATED 23-07-201 0 LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 AGGRIEVED BY THE RESPECTIVE PENALTY ORDERS, THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE FURN ISHED EXPLANATION FOR ACCEPTING DEPOSITS IN CASH AND REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE BIFURCATION OF THE DEPO SITS RECEIVED AGAINST GOODS AND AGAINST INTEREST AND ALSO THE DETAILS O F REPAYMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE DETA ILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THE BIFURCATION OF DEPOSITS ACCEPTED AGAINST MATERIAL AND T HAT AGAINST INTEREST IS AS FOLLOWS, ACCEPTANCES RS. TOTAL CASH ADVANCE ACCEPTED DURING THE YEAR LESS THAN RS.10,000/- 414000 CASH ADVANCE ACCEPTED ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL 2005000 CASH ADVANCE ACCEPTED AGAINST INTEREST 580000 TOTAL : 29,99.000 REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS RS. TOTAL CASH ADVANCE REPAID DURING THE YEAR LESS THAN RS.10,000/- 40000 CASH ADVANCE REPAID ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL 695000 CASH ADVANCE REPAID AGAINST INTEREST 600000 TOTAL : 13,35,000 AFTER ANALYZING THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THE D EPOSITS ACCEPTED ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL AND INTEREST AMOUNTED T O RS.25,85,000/- AND THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH AGAIN ST MATERIAL AND INTEREST AMOUNTED TO RS.12,95,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, T HE 4 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NOTICE. NO T CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PE NALTY AND ALSO ENHANCED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ENHANCED THE PEN ALTY U/S. 271D BY RS.3,40,000/- AND U/S. 271E BY RS.30,000/-. AGAINS T THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FLOATED SCHEME CALLED A NNAPURNA DEPOSIT SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED CASH DEPO SITS FROM ITS CUSTOMERS UNDER THE SCHEME. THE SCHEME WAS FLOATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ATTRACT MORE CUSTOMERS FROM MIDDLE AND LOWER MIDDLE CL ASS OF THE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED DISCOUNTS AGAINST THE DEPO SITS ACCEPTED FROM THE RESPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE AVAILED THE SCHEME WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FREE GOODS ON EVERY PURCHAS E DEPENDING UPON THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT. THE DETAILS OF ALL THE CUSTOME RS WHO HAD AVAILED THE SCHEME WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE BENEFITS AVAILED BY THE CUSTOMERS WERE ALSO RECORDED. THE SCHEME WAS LAUNCHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A MARKETING ST RATEGY TO ATTRACT MORE CUSTOMERS AND TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF HIG HER TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN WOULD PASS ON THE BENEFIT TO THE C USTOMERS IN THE FORM OF GIFTS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATIO N THAT THE SCHEME FLOATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS. THE ASSESS EE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT ACCEPTING CASH DEPOSITS UNDER MARKETI NG SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION 5 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 (INVESTIGATION) VS. KUM. A. B. SHANTHI REPORTED AS 255 ITR 258 (SC), THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S AHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. REPORTED AS 83 DTR 162 (DELHI) AN D THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SANJAY RAMCHANDRA PHAND VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO. 2237/PN/2012 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DECIDED ON 31-12-2013. THE LD . AR PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DELETING OF PENALT Y LEVIED U/S. 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR MADE AN ALTERNATE PRAYER THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS EARLIER SUBMISSIONS, THE PENALTY LEV IED U/S. 271D AND 271E SHOULD BE DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF DEPO SITS ACCEPTED AND REPAID AGAINST MATERIAL. THE LD. AR ALSO REFERRED TO SO ME OF THE FOLIOS AT PAGES 29 TO 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DETAILS OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAD AVAILED THE SCHEME WERE MAINTAINED. 5. DR. DHEERAJ JAIN REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMIN G THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THE LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER THE AFORESAID SECTIONS CAN BE DELETED ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING DEPOSITS IN CASH AND THE REPAYMENT OF THE DEPOSITS IN CA SH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY COGENT REASON EITHER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L FOR ACCEPTING AND REPAYMENT OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OR COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ACCEPTING DEPOSITS IN CASH AND REPAYMENT OF SAME IN CAS H. THE RELIEF CANNOT BE GRANTED MERELY ON THE GROUND OF IGNORANCE O F LAW. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD CLEA RLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTING CASH DEPOSITS TO FINANC E ITS BUSINESS. 6 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY BONAFIDE AND REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR ENTERING INTO SUCH CASH TRANSACTIONS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I. BUILTEC ENGINEERS & BUILDERS VS. DCIT, 214 TAXMAN 99 (MADRAS); II. CIT VS. NATIONAL TAJ TRADERS, 121 ITR 535 (SC); III. ITO VS. SUNIL M. KASLIWAL, 94 ITD 281 (PUNE)(TM); IV. ADDL. CIT VS. MADIREDDY VENKAT REDDY, 55 SOT 94 (HYDERABAD). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENT ATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD IN THE FO RM OF PAPER BOOK BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL THE DECISIONS ON WHICH RIVAL SIDES HAVE PLACED RELIANCE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD ACCEPTED CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.25,85,000/- AND HAS REPAID THE DEPOSITS IN CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,95,000/- DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAID CAS H DEPOSITS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SELF PROMULGAT ED SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DEPOSITS IN MULTIPLE OF THOUSANDS F ROM ITS CUSTOMERS IN CASH. AGAINST THE DEPOSITS THE CUSTOMERS WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FREE GIFTS ON EVERY PURCHASE DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD SOME FOLIOS OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS UNDER THE ANNA PURNA DEPOSIT SCHEME FLOATED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN BIFURCATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS A CCEPTED BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS.10,000/-, CASH DEPOSITS ACCEPTED ON ACCOUN T OF MATERIAL AND THE CASH DEPOSITS ACCEPTED AGAINST THE INTEREST. S IMILARLY, THE DETAILS OF THE REPAYMENT OF THE DEPOSITS LESS THAN RS.10,00 0/-, REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS ACCEPTED AGAINST MATERIAL AND ACC EPTED AGAINST INTEREST WERE ALSO FURNISHED. 7 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 7. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS NO PERSON SHALL ACCEPT DEPOSITS OTHERWISE BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, ACCO UNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- OR MORE. THE CONSEQU ENCES OF VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE SET OUT IN SECTION 271D IN THE FORM OF PENALTY. SIMILARLY, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 269T NO COMPANY SHALL REPAY ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN EXCESS OF R S.20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT DRAWN IN THE NAME OF PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT. ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T SHALL BE LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. THUS, THE THRESHOLD LIMIT FOR THE CASH TRANSACTIONS U/S. 269SS AND 2 69T IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. 7.1 A PERUSAL OF THE BIFURCATION OF THE DEPOSITS ACCEPTED A ND REPAYMENT OF DEPOSIT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATELY GIVEN THE DETAILS OF CASH ADVANCE ACCEPTED D URING THE YEAR LESS THAN RS.10,000/- AND CASH ADVANCE REPAID DURING THE YEAR LESS THAN RS.10,000/-. IT SEEMS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE BIFURCATION FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE IN LIMITING THE CASH DEPOSITS AND REPAYMENTS AT RS.10,000/-. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE MATTER NEEDS A REVISIT TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR DETERMINING CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH REPAYMENTS IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE LIMIT STATED IN SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURNISH FRESH BIFURCATION OF DEPOSITS ACC EPTED IN CASH DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD LESS THAN RS.20,000/-, A ND ALSO FURNISH FRESH BIFURCATION OF CASH REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS DURIN G THE RELEVANT PERIOD LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. 8 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 8. IN SO FAR AS ACCEPTANCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND THE RE PAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CERTAINLY VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO CREATE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DEPOSITS RECEIVED AGAINST THE BE NEFITS TO BE GIVEN IN KIND (GIFTS) AND THE DEPOSITS ACCEPTED AGAINST THE INTEREST. SIMILAR, DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE ON CASH REPAYMENT OF DEP OSITS I.E. DEPOSITS ACCEPTED ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL AND DEPOSITS A CCEPTED ON THE ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESA ID ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION HAS BEEN CREATED TO GET AWAY FROM THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. THE TERMS DEPOSIT AND LOAN USED IN SECTION 269SS AND 269T DOES NOT CREATE DISTINCTION IN DE POSITS AND LOANS ACCEPTED FOR PROPAGATING BUSINESS AND FOR FINANCING O F THE BUSINESS. WHETHER THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE ACCEPTED AGAIN ST SUPPLY OF MATERIAL OR AGAINST INTEREST IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENC E IN SO FAR AS APPLICATION OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T IS CONCERNED. 9. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS HAS PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATION) VS. KUM. A. B. SHANT HI (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT OF INDIA IN THE SAID CASE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBS TANTIATE THE HARDSHIP OR THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR ACCEPTING CASH D EPOSITS FROM THE CUSTOMERS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE CASH WAS ACCEPTED DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE BANKING FACILITIES OR U NDER ANY OTHER COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FLOATED THE MARKETING SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE WAS AT LIBERTY TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE APPLICATION FORMS OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO INTENDED TO JOIN TH E SCHEME. IT 9 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FORMULATE THE SCHEME AND NOT THE CUSTOMERS. AS HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, MA JORITY OF THE CUSTOMERS WERE FROM MIDDLE CLASS AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS OF T HE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING IN AN URBAN AREA. THE PEOP LE IN SUCH CLASS ARE FAIRLY LITERATE AND HAVE THE BENEFIT OF BANKING FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT THE MEMBERS HIP FORM OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO WOULD NOT AGREE TO MAKE DEPOSIT OR ACCE PT REFUND THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. 10. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE SA ID CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT GRANTED RELIEF FOR ACCEPTING DEPOSITS IN CASH, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CORRESPONDENCE THAT SOME OF THE BANKS WERE RELUCTANT TO ALLOW AGENTS O F THE ASSESSEE TO OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE FOR TRANSACTING IN CASH. THEREFORE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TRIED TO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIO N RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SANJAY RAMCHANDRA PHAND VS. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA ) DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD SUBSTANTIATE THE REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE CASH SECURIT Y DEPOSITS FROM HIS TENANTS. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY SUCH MATERIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO GR ANT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO DETERMINE THE CASH DEPOSITS ACCEPTED BY THE 10 ITA NOS. 2052 & 2053/PN/2013, A.Y. 2007-08 ASSESSEE FROM EACH CUSTOMER IN EXCESS OF LIMIT PROVIDED UN DER SECTION 269SS AND ALSO THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH BY ASS ESSEE TO THE CUSTOMER IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 269T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXCLUDING SUCH CA SH DEPOSITS AND REPAYMENTS SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THE APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS PARTLY ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SE IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2015 RK *+,$-.'/'(- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-IV, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE