| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2332 2014 SLD 2332 (2014) 365 ITR 367 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT APPEAL No. 111 OF 2013 (O & M), MARCH 14, 2014
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ
Ravish Sood, Advocate for the Appellant. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the
Respondent.
IT APPEAL No. 111 OF 2013 (O & M), MARCH 14, 2014
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ
Ravish Sood, Advocate for the Appellant. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the
Respondent.
Charan Dass Ashok Kumar
v.
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated September 20, 2012, annexure A-6, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in I.T A. No. 369(ASR)/2011 for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal, is right in law in refusing to take cognizance of extract of the cash book dated December 29, 2005, placed at page 9 of the paper book furnished by the appellant-firm, specifically when during the course of hearing of the appeal the Tribunal after duly taking cognizance of the same had raised queries, made notings, and even called upon the Departmental representative to place his counter-submission as regards the same, by so doing had therein admitted the same, and no objection/defect as regards the same was ever brought to the notice of the appellant-firm, either by the Registry or by the Bench ? 2. Whether the findings of the Tribunal that the appellant-firm had not furnished any documentary evidence or any explanation either before it or before the lower authorities being perverse cannot be sustained in the eyes of law ? 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the penalty imposed in the hands of the appellant-firm under section 271D of the Act for technical/venial breach of the provisions of section 269SS, specifically when the said loan transaction stood duly recorded in the books of account which were unilaterally produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings and neither the genuineness of the loan nor the source thereof had ever been doubted by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment of the appellant-firm ? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty imposed under section 271D of the Act in respect of a cash loan raised by the appellant-firm from its agriculturist customers, which was prompted by urgent need of funds to meet out outstanding bank liability, remaining under the bona fide belief that cash transactions withβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492