ACIT, CHENNAI V. V C Palani, Vellore

ITSSA 16/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2528 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SANKARALINGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Section: 263; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !' .$%$&, ( ') BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/2013 BLOCK PERIOD : FROM 1.4.1996 TO 27.11.2002 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI V.C. PALANI, 52, PERIADHANAM SUBBARAYA MUDALI STREET, VELAPADI, VELLORE 630 001. PAN : AHLPP 8172 E (+,/ APPELLANT) (./+,/ RESPONDENT) +, 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SANKARALINGAM, CIT ./+, 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE 2 0 3( / DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2016 456 0 3( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, DATED 27.03.2013. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARI SES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE A PPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 5 DAYS IN FILING BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THER E WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE STIPU LATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEA LS. 3. I.T.(SS) A. NO.16/MDS/2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. I.T.(SS) A. NO.17/MDS/2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT '). LETS FIRST TAKE I.T.(SS) A. NO.16/MDS/2013. 4. SHRI S. SANKARALINGAM, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 43,75,000/- FROM 15 PERSONS IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED ALL THE 15 CREDITORS TO APPEAR IN PERSON. THE CREDITORS DID NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOIN TED DAY. ON 17.12.2007, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED 4 CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED 4 CREDITORS ON 28.12.2007. ONE OF THE CRE DITORS SHRI S. PANDURANGAN FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ALL TH E 8 CREDITORS, 3 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 WHO WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PERSO N AND THE PERSON WHO EXPLAINED IN WRITING, ADMITTED THAT THEY ADVANCED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR EXPLANATION FROM THE A SSESSEE WHY THERE WAS NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BETWEEN T HE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE ACTED ONLY AS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN T HE CREDITORS AND THE BORROWERS AND FOR THAT HE CHARGED ONLY A SM ALL AMOUNT AS BROKERAGE. HOWEVER, THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT WAS REPAID IN CASH. REFERRING TO T HE PRO-NOTES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT THE LOAN SAID TO BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE AMOUNT TAKEN FROM 15 CREDITORS. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION NEED TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM 15 CREDI TORS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, F OUND THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS IS P ROVED. HOWEVER, 4 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT PROVED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SUNDRY CREDIT OF ` 43,75,000/- WAS LOAN MONEY WHICH WAS LENT TO THE CREDITORS. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND T HAT THE CREDITORS ADMITTED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR O F INCOME TAX THAT THEY ADVANCED MONEY TO OTHERS FOR EARNING HIGHER RA TE OF INTEREST. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND MONEY WAS ADVANCED TO OTHER PERSONS FOR EARNING HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. THE CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON A SURMISE AND NOT ON A DEFINITE FINDING. ACCORDING TO THE LD . D.R., THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT PROVED AND TH E RETIRED PEOPLE DO NOT HANDOVER THEIR MONEY WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SINCE THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITORS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED 5 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MONEY FROM 15 CREDIT ORS. IN FACT, AMONG THE 15 CREDITORS, 8 OF THEM APPEARED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED M ONEY TO THIRD PARTIES THROUGH ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER RATE OF INTERES T. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, ACTED AS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED CREDITORS AND THE BORROWERS F OR BROKERAGE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AS GENUINE, ACCOR DING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSACTION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE. NO LAW REQUIRES THAT THE MONEY HAS TO BE ADVANCED ONLY ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE CREDITORS ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONE Y THROUGH THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT TH E TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE, HENCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDERS 6 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSIN ESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.01.2003. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH PROCEEDING, THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT BOOKS AND DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT 15 PERSONS HAVE INVESTED M ONEY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 43,75,000/- FOR ADVANCING THE SAME TO VARIOUS PERSO NS AND CLAIMED BROKERAGE AT THE RATE OF 3%. ALL THE C REDITORS, WHO APPEARED AND HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE INVESTIGATIO N WING OF THE DEPARTMENT, ADMITTED THAT THEY ADVANCED MONEY TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IN EX ERCISE OF HIS REVISIONAL POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, FOUN D THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER INVESTIGATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THE AD MINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER BY ORDER DATED 29.03.2007, DIRECTED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. 8. CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIV E COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED ALL THE CREDITO RS TO APPEAR 7 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 BEFORE HIM ONCE AGAIN. 8 CREDITORS APPEARED IN PER SON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONE CREDITOR HAS FILED WRITTE N EXPLANATION. ALL OF THEM HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY FURTHER STEP IN RESPECT OF OTHER 6 PERSONS. HOWEVER, FROM THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT REMAINING 6 PERSONS HAVE ALS O ADMITTED THE FACT OF ADVANCING MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER CATEGORICALLY FOUND THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CREDITORS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS ARE PROVED. WHAT IS DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION . THE REASON FOR DOUBTING THE TRANSACTION WAS THAT THERE WAS NO DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF ADVANCING MONEY. THERE ARE VARIOUS REASONS FOR THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO ANYBODY ELSE. THE LAW OF THE LAND DOES NOT R EQUIRE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR ESTABLISHING MONEY. IT DEP ENDS UPON THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE OR ANYBODY ELSE ENTERED INTO A TRANSACTION WITH SO-CAL LED 15 CREDITORS AND THE 15 CREDITORS ADMITTED THAT THEY ADVANCE MON EY ON THE BASIS OF ORAL AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DOU BT THE TRANSACTION MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 8 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 9. THE FACT THAT ALL THE CREDITORS ADMITTED THAT TH EY HAVE ADVANCED MONEY, THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE IGNORED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ORAL EVIDENCE BY THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS IS ALSO ONE OF THE FORMS OF ESTABLISHING A FACT IN A JUDICI AL PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT TH E EXISTENCE OF CREDITORS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITORS ARE PRO VED, AND THE CREDITORS ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT IGNORE THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE CREDITORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISBELIEVING THE GENUI NENESS OF TRANSACTION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS ALSO ESTABLISHED, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THIS TR IBUNAL FINDS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS CO NFIRMED. 10. IN THE RESULT, I.T.(SS) A. NO.16/MDS/2013 IS DI SMISSED. 9 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 11. NOW LETS COME TO I.T.(SS) A. NO.17/MDS/2013. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 12. SHRI S. SANKARALINGAM, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED ` 43,75,000/- FROM 15 PERSONS IN CASH. THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF ` 20,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH IN EXCESS OF ` 20,000/- FROM 15 PERSONS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 43,75,000/-, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT HAS TO BE LEVIED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE IS ONLY A BROKER AND TH E MONEY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM 15 PERSONS ARE FOR ADVANCING L OAN TO OTHER PERSONS ON BEHALF OF ABOVE SAID 15 PERSONS, IT CANN OT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LOAN TRANSACTION. 13. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEDU CTING A PORTION OF INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES MADE BY HIM AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE. THIS METHOD OF DEDUCTING A POR TION OF INTEREST AT THE TIME OF ADVANCING THE MONEY IS NOT COMPATIBL E WITH THE 10 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 ASSESSEES CLAIM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE A SSESSEE IS ACTING AS A MONEY LENDER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES FO R RECEIVING THE MONEY IN CASH. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE PRO- NOTES WERE TAKEN IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AT THE INS TANCE OF CREDITORS, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED BY THE SO-CALLED 15 CREDITORS THROUGH ASSESSEE, THEN T HE PRO-NOTES CANNOT BE OBTAINED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A BROKER AND ENTITLED ONLY FOR COMMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE REFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS CONFIRMED BY ALL THE 15 PERSONS. THEY HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURC E FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS. ALL THE 15 PERSONS ADMITTED BEFORE T HE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONE Y TO OTHERS FOR EARNING HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE MONEY ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE STATEMENT 11 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 GIVEN BY THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS. THEREFORE, HE D ELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RI GHTLY FOUND THAT JUST TO QUALIFY THE DISSATISFACTION RECORDED EARLIE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RETIRED PEOPLE DO NOT HANDOV ER MONEY WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PERSONS WHO ARE INVOLVED. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS EITHE R TO OBTAIN ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LAW REQUIRING THE CREDITORS TO GET DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CANNOT DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, ESPECIAL LY, WHEN THE CREDITORS ADMITTED BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(AP PEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT 15 PERSONS ADVANCED MONEY THROUGH ASSES SEE TO THIRD PARTIES FOR EARNING HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. THIS FACT OF ADVANCING MONEY THROUGH ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED BY THE RESPECTI VE CREDITORS 12 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THIS FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. SU BSEQUENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, WHILE REVISING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT RETIRED PEOPLE DO NOT HANDOVER HARD EARNED MONEY WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE CREDITORS ADMI TTED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED TO OTHERS THR OUGH ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS R ECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THE SO-CALLED 15 CREDITORS. THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED ONLY AS A BROKER ON BEHALF OF 15 INDIVIDUALS WHO ADVANCED MONEY. THERE FORE, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RESPECTIVE CRE DITORS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE LOAN TRANSACTION. THE CREDITOR S ENTRUSTED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ADVANCING TO OTHERS FOR E ARNING HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. THEREFORE, AT NO STRETCH OF IMAG INATION IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 43,75,000/- IN CASH AS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THE 13 I.T.(SS) A. NOS.16 & 17/MDS/13 PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !' .$%$& ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. KRI. 0 .39: ;:63 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. ./+, /RESPONDENT 3. 2 <3 () /CIT(A)-I, CHENNAI 4. 2 <3 /CIT, CENTRAL-III, CHENNAI 5. := .3 /DR 6. >& ? /GF.