COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DINESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Both these tax appeals have been preferred by the Revenue challenging the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "ITAT") dated December 7, 2012, passed in I.T.A. No. 1428/AHD/2010 and I.T.A. No. 1429/AHD/2010 ITO v. Dineshchandra Shantilal Shah (HUF),2013 1 ITR 647by which, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid two appeals preferred by the Revenue confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer of the levying the penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) That during scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had accepted the cheques (other than account payee cheque) for certain individuals wherein the sum involved in each case was in excess of Rs. 20,000 which was found to be in breach of the provision of section 269SS of the Act, the proceedings were initiated for imposing/levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act.

(3.) Shri Parikh, learned counsel of the Revenue, is not in a position to satisfy the court how by the aforesaid transaction of cheque discounting it can be said that there was any loan or deposit taken by the assessee. We have our own doubt whether cheque discounting business can be said to be loan or deposit at all. In any case, when it is not proved and/or established that by cheque discounting business the assessee had taken any loan or deposit from the agriculturist and/or they have repaid any loan to the agriculturist, neither section 269SS nor section 269T of the Act are attracted. Under the circumstances, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in confirming the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) quashing and setting aside the orders of penalty passed under section 271D and section 271E of the Act. Question of law much less substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, both the appeals fail, they deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.