- (1.) AFFIDAVIT of service filed today be taken on record. The present appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITAT No. 274/Luc/2004, in the matter relating to imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act, in respect of the Assessment Year 1997 -98.
(2.) IT appears that search & seizure operation was carried out on 02.04.1997 whereupon block assessment was completed under section 158BD of the Act vide order dated 29.02.2001. The Assessing Officer had found that the respondent assessee had received money exceeding Rs. 20,000/ -in cash from 46 persons. The amount was added. Proceedings under section 269SS and imposition of penalty under section 271D was initiated. A plea was taken that the amount was share application money and not a deposit and, therefore, the provisions of aforesaid section are not attracted. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and vide order dated 03.06.2003 imposed penalty of Rs. 48,77,800/ -on the ground that the assessee had received the like amount in contravention of section 269SS of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur, who vide order dated 03.02.2004 had allowed the appeal on the ground that the money received by the respondent assessee was share application money and the provisions of section 269SS are not attracted. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which by the impugned order dated 20.03.2008 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal. We have heard Sri Shambu Chopra, learned senior counsel for the revenue and have perused the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as also the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the CIT (Appeals).
(3.) SRI Chopra, learned senior counsel submitted that as the amount was received in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/ -and share application forms were undated, it was only a cover up transaction just to escape the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and, therefore, the penalty under section 271D was rightly levied and the Tribunal had erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the said penalty.;