2 I.T.A. NO. 662/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 & I.T.A. NO. 663/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. ABNM RESTAURANT PVT. LTD 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE MATERIAL IMPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THEN CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT TAKEN THE SAID LOANS AND THAT IT WAS THE DIRECTORS WHO HAD TAKEN THESE CASH LOANS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND HENCE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS & 269T OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 14 MENTIONED THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE FILED APPLICATIONS, UNDER INCOME DISCLOSURE SCHEMES FOR THESE AMOUNTS, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. WE EXTRACT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR READY REFERENCE:- 4 I.T.A. NO. 662/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 & I.T.A. NO. 663/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. ABNM RESTAURANT PVT. LTD 5. THE LD D/R COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE AGREE WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY BOTH U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. MOREOVER, THE PENALTIES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN LEVIED BY A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271D