Itta/66/2015 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. G.sanjay Chowdhary
High Court
02 Jul 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/66/2015 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. G.sanjay Chowdhary
Date of order
02 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/66/2015 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. G.sanjay Chowdhary, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.T.A. No. 66 of 2015
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
This appeal, at the instance of Revenue, is filed against theorder of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2014, purporting to raise the followingsubstantial question of law:
“1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal isjustified in confirming the order of CIT (A) andthereby holding that the transactions throughjournal entry do not attract the provisions ofSec.269T and consequently penalty is notleviable u/s 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961?”
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned StandingCounsel for the Department submits that earlier, in respect of the familymember of the assessee, this Court dismissed I.T.T.A.No. 12 of 2014,wherein it was held as:
“We have read the reasoning rendered in theprevious judgment. It appears that the assesseechallenged the penalty proceedings initiatedunder Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961on the ground of illegal borrowings incontravention of Section 269SS of the Act. Thelearned Tribunal on an earlier occasion foundthat there is no proof of receipt of such loan fromthe records and they were only found to bejournal entries. The learned Tribunal, in ourview, correctly observed that relying on an entryin the journal, no penalty proceedings can beinitiated. Hence, it was sent for clarificationwhether actual flow of money did take place. Therefore, the matter was remanded and nodecision was taken on merit.”
3. The reasoning in the said judgment is applicable to the factsand circumstances of the present case.
4. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall standclosed.
______________________
G. CHANDRAIAH, J
02[nd] July, 2015ksm
_____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
ksm
I.T.T.A. No. 66 of 2015
02[nd] July, 2015
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.