M/s. Jindal Fiber, Panipat V. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 3750/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1960 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYANSHY AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 271D

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I(2) + SM C NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEM BER, AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 ( A.Y 2014-15) RAGHURAJ SINGH A-173, IIND FLOOR, SECTOR-47, NOIDA GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR AWJPS9924 (APPELLANT) VS JCIT RANGE-3, NOIDA (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. PREM LATA BANSAL, SR. ADVOCATE & SH. DIVYANSHY AGRAWAL, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 31/03/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY TH E HONBLE LD CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, WRONG ON FACTS AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPA L OF NATURAL JUSTICES HENCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LA W AND FACTS IN SUSTAINING PENALTY OF RS. 12,00,000/- IMPOSED BY THE HONBLE L D CIT(A) UNDER SECTION DATE OF HEARING 03.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 .05.2020 2 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 27ID WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS, CIRCU MSTANCES AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT NO PENALTY FOR CASH LOANS EXCEEDING RS. 20 ,000 FROM AGRICULTURISTS LIVING IN VILLAGE AREAS WHEN TRANSACTION WERE NOT D OUBTED AS THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGRICULTURIST. THE ALL THESE PERSONS WERE AGRI CULTURISTS AND THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AT NO POINT OF TIME HAD BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. THEY LIVED IN VILLAGE(REMOTE) AREAS. 4. THAT THE HONBLE LD CIT(A) HAD ERRED ON FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY U/S 271 D OF RS 12,00,000.00, BEING WHOLLY BASED ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES AND BEING UNTRUE, THE SAME MUST BE DELETED. BECAUSE THE REQUI REMENT OF SECTION 273B IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR ITS HAVING FAILED TO ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS. AS EMERGES FROM THE RECORD, NOT ONLY THE SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE LIKE B OTH ARE AGRICULTURIST BUT, ALSO ADDITIONALLY, TRANSACTIONS WERE REFLECTED IN T HE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RE FLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THOSE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LOAN HAD BEE N RECEIVED. THE IDENTITY OF THOSE PERSONS HAS ALSO BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO HAD GIVEN SATISFACTORY REASON FOR TAKING SUCH LOAN. HIS BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS WOULD NOT ATTRACT PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE AGRICULTURISTS AND LIVED IN REMOTE VILLAG ES ALSO WAS ONE OF THE GROUNDS WHICH HAS WEIGHED BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. 5. THAT THE HONBLE LD CIT(A) BELOW HAVE NOT PROPER LY APPRECIATED THE PURPOSE, AIMS AND OBJECTS OF INSERTING SECTION 269S S AS CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR 387, DT. 6TH JULY, 1984, ACCORDING TO WHICH THESE PROVISIONS WERE BROUGHT TO CURB THE TENDENCY OF TAX EVADERS TO PROVE THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY FOUND IN PROCESSING ITR. 6. THAT THE HONBLE LD CIT(A) HAVE NOT PROPERLY AP PRECIATED THAT THE 3 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 TRANSACTION IS NEITHER A DEPOSIT AS THE ASSESSEE IS GIVER OF AMOUNT TO SELLER /FARMER TO MEET URGENT NEEDS BY ASSESSEE CLOSE RELA TIVE WHO GOT COMPULSORY LAND COMPENSATION. 7. THAT THE DEFAULT, IF ANY, IS OF TECHNICAL AND V ENIAL NATURE AS THE GENUINENESS AND AVAILABILITY OF CASH GIVEN BY THE F ARMER TO FARMER TO MEET URGENT NEEDS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED. 8. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HO NBLE LD CIT(A), NOIDA IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND WRONG I NTERPRETATION OF LAW. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS U/S 143 (3) FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN IN CASH DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7,00,000/- FROM SH. RAHUL, S/O SH. BHOPAL SINGH, VI LLAGE- SADARPUR, SECTOR- 45, NOIDA AND RS. 5,00,000/- FROM SH. VIPIN KUMAR, S/O SH. MAHIPAL, VILLAGE- GULISTANPUR, POST- SURAJPUR, GAUTUM BUDH NAGAR. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT FOR ACCEPTING LOAN EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BANK DRAFT, A LETTER DATED 02.06.2016 STATING FACTS WAS SENT TO THE RANGE OFFICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NO TICE DATED 30.06.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FUR NISHED A DETAILED REPLY DATED 22.11.2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SUBMITTED THE DATE WISE DETAILS ON WHICH CASH LOAN RECEIVED AGGREGATING TO RS. 12,00,000/- FROM HIS RELATIVES SH. RAHUL AND SH. VI PIN KUMAR. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THESE ARE CASH LOANS TAKEN FROM HI S RELATIVES. IN HIS REPLY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO GRANT HIM IMMUNITY FROM THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 271D ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR A CCEPTING CASH LOANS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CASH LOAN FROM HIS O WN RELATIVES AND THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN IS GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING THE 4 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 DEPOSITS IN THE FORM OF CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE ATTRACTED IN T HE INSTANT CASE SINCE NO EXPLANATION OR REASONS WERE FURNISHED FOR NON-COMPL IANCE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 12,00,000/- U/S 271D OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT DISPUTED. BOTH THE TRANSACTION WAS MADE BETWEEN THE FARMERS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SSESSEE IS A RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAROLA, NOIDA AND IS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT A-173, 2 ND FLOOR, SECTOR-47, NOIDA. HE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE WITH HIS FATHER. DURI NG THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PLOT (MEASURING 283 SQ MTR) ALONG WITH SHRI NITISH ARYA IN JOINT OWNERSHIP (EACH HAVING 50% SHARE) FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 22.64 LAKH FROM SHRI OM PAL, SON OF LATE SHRI CHATAR SING H, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAPROLI BANGER, NOIDA. PLOT WAS SITUATED AT CM-45, SECTOR-144, NOIDA. TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AS UNDER: SALE CONSIDERATION RS. 22,64,000/- STAMP DUTY CHARGES RS. 4,81,000/- TRANSFER CHARGES RS. 4,49,220/- TOTAL RS. 31,94,320/- ASSESSEES SHARE(50%) RS. 15,97,160/- THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMO UNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- 5 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 (I) TRANSFER CHARGES OF RS. 4,49,220/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO NOIDA AUTHORITY FOR TRANSFER OF PLOT IN HIS NAME THROUGH DD DATED 18.09.2013 BEARING NO.538417. DD WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAHUL, SON OF SHRI BHOPAL SINGH, THE BROTHER-I N-LAW (JIJA) OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS RAHUL IS A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BEIN G HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW. (II) STAMP DUTY OF RS.2,40,550/- WAS PAID BY THE A SSESSEE TO THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. III) SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.11,32,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER IN CASH AND FOR THIS PURPOSES HE TOOK A LOAN OF RS. 12,00,000/- AS UNDER: A) RS. 7,00,000/- FROM SHRI RAHUL (JIJA) ON 18.09.2 013. RAHUL HAD GIVEN THIS LOAN OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM AS COMP ENSATION AGAINST COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF HIS LAND BY NOIDA AUTHORI TY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE. B) RS. 5,00,000/- FROM SHRI VIPIN KUMAR (NEPHEW), S ON OF MAHIPAL ON 09.07.2013. THIS LOAN WAS GIVEN BY SHRI VIPIN KUMAR OUT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY HIM AGAINST ACQUISITION OF HIS LAND BY NOIDA AUTHORITY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND THE REFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE BORROWER AND THE CREDITOR BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST AN D THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 269SS LAYS DOWN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF T HIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR SPECIFIED SUM, WHERE THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR SPECIFIED SUM IS TAKEN OR ACCEPTED AN D THE PERSON BY WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR SPECIFIED SUM IS TAKEN OR ACCEPT ED, ARE BOTH HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NEITHER OF THEM HAS ANY INC OME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THIS ACT. SINCE THE CREDITOR HAD GIVEN THE L OAN FROM THEIR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BORROWER WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITY 6 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 (PHOTOGRAPHER JOB WAS TEMPORARY, HE WAS AMATEUR AND HAVING MARGINAL INCOME), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE NOT AT TRACTED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO GENUIN E TRANSACTIONS OF TAKING LOAN FROM HIS RELATIVES. SECTION 269SS WAS INTRODUC ED BY THE FINANCE ACT 1984 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1984. OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING THIS PROVISION IS EXPLAINED BY CIRCULAR NO.387 DATED 06 JUL 1984. PARA 32.1 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR STATES THAT: UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCHES C ARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS OFTEN EXPLAINED BY TAXPAYE RS AS REPRESENTING LOANS TAKEN FROM OR DEPOSITS MADE BY VARIOUS PERSON S. UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS ALSO BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I N THE FORM OF SUCH LOANS AND DEPOSITS, AND TAX-PAYERS ARE ALSO ABLE TO GET CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM SUCH PERSONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EXPLANATION. WITH A VIEW TO COUNTERING THIS DEVICE, WHICH ENABLES TAX PAYERS TO EXPLAIN AWAY UNACCOUNTED CASH OR UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS, THE FINAN CE ACT HAS INSERTED A NEW SECTION 269SS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT DEBARRING PERSONS FROM TAKING OR ACCEPTING, AFTER 30 JUN 1984, FROM ANY OTHER PER SON ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUN T PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT IS RS.10,000/- OR MORE . TH US SECTION 269SS WAS INTRODUCED TO DEBAR THE PERSON FROM INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED/UNEXPLAINED INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTROD UCED HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TREAT ED THE LOAN AS BOGUS OR NON- GENUINE. LENDERS HAD GIVEN THE LOAN OUT OF THEIR CO MPENSATION RECEIVED AGAINST COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THEIR LAND AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAID LOAN HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CORROBORATING MATERIAL. ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS BY WAY OF PRO DUCING THEIR PAN, BANK 7 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 STATEMENTS, AADHAR NOS., THEIR AFFIDAVITS AND ALSO THE NAKAL OF THEIR NAKSHA KHATA. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SELLE R, BEING AGRICULTURIST HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATI ON IN CASH. IT WAS ONLY FOR THIS REASON THAT THE LENDERS HAD WITHDRAWN THE AMOU NT FROM THEIR BANK AND PAID TO THE SELLERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD A REASON ABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING THE LOAN IN CASH. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ON REASONABLE CAUSE BEING SHOWN, NO PENALTY SHALL BE I MPOSSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT HIS CLOSE RELATIVE (BROT HER IN LAW AND NEPHEW) HAD PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,000/- DIRECTLY TO THE S ELLER OF THE PLOT BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE; NECESSARY FUND WAS PROVIDED BY THE AS SESSEES CLOSE RELATIVE AS A CASH LOAN AS AGRICULTURIST AND THE SAID CASH WAS TA KEN URGENTLY TO GET THE PURCHASE DEED EXECUTED. SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPERTY INVESTMENT WITH THE HELP OF HIS CLOSE RELATIVE. SINCE IT WAS WITHIN THE FAMILY TRANSACTION, PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. IN CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN CASH, PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXIGIBLE, SINCE IT COULD BE SAVED NOT WITHSTANDING VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS, IF THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. CIT VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD BAJORIA, HUF (2003) 263 ITR 487 (GAU) II. CIT VS. T R RENGARAJAN (2005) 279 ITR 587 (MAD) III. CIT VS. KUNDRATHUR FINANCE & CHIT CO. (2006) 283 IT R 329 (MAD.) IV. ASHWANI KUMAR VS. ITO (2009) 309 ITR (AT) 69 (DEL) . V. HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) VI. CIT VS. NATWAR LAL PURSHOTTAM DAS PAREKH (2008) 303 ITR 5 (GUJ) VII. CIT VS. SMT M. YASHODHA (2013) 351 ITR 265 (MAD) VIII. SHIVNANDAN KAUSHIK VS. DCIT (2002) 74 TTJ CHD 761 8 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 IX. SHRI JAGMOHAN SHARMA VS. JCIT (ITA NO. 552 & 553/KO L/2015 ORDER DATED 10.01.2018) X. DR. DEEPAK MUCHALA VS. ITO (1997) 58 TTJ (BOM-TRI) 524 XI. MOHAN KARKARE VS. DCIT (1995) 52 ITD 236 XII. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH VS. JCIT (ITA NO. 926/CHD/2012 ORDER DATED 11.03.2014) XIII. SONIA MALIK VS. JCIT (ITA NO. 7792/DEL/2018 ORDER D ATED 10.05.2019) 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE CONTRAV ENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND HENCE, LIABLE FOR PENA LTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE LACKED HONESTY AND TRUTHFULNESS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 269SS LAYS DOWN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A NY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR SPECIFIED SUM, WHERE THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR SPECIFIED SUM IS TAKEN OR ACCEPTED AND THE PERSON BY WHOM THE LOAN O R DEPOSIT OR SPECIFIED SUM IS TAKEN OR ACCEPTED, ARE BOTH HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NEITHER OF THEM HAS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THIS ACT. T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT SINCE THE CREDITOR HAD GIVEN THE LOAN FROM THE IR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BORROWER WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIV ITY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A) FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE EVIDENCES. THUS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO LOOK INTO THE EVIDENCES PRODU CED BEFORE THEM AND DID NOT VERIFY THE SAME IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THUS, IT WILL BE 9 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE REMANDING BA CK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 269SS AND THEREAFTER DECIDE WHETHER PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D IS LEVIABLE OR NOT IN THE PRESEN T CASE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWI NG PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 05 TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 05/05/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NO. 3570/DEL/2017 DATE OF DICTATION 03.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 03.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 3 . 5 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER