Equivalent have a look at might have been used CITvs Thus, for the CIT compared to I.P. India (P.) Ltd. sixteen taxmann 407 (Delhi), DHC held when this type of examination was applied the fresh new bill regarding share application monies regarding three personal minimal companies to own allotment regarding offers regarding assessee-providers can’t be handled as acknowledgment from financing otherwise deposit. Most other choices whereby it’s been kept one Display software funds received within the bucks won’t amount possibly in order to financing or put is actually VLS Items (P Given that display app currency gotten from the assessee was handled since undisclosed income, penalty process cannot have been initiated less than part 269SS realize that have part 271D of Money-income tax Work, 1961. CIT vs Roentgen. P. Singh and you may Co. Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 0217 (Del) . Even if parts 269SS and 269T use the terms “otherwise than simply because of the an accountpayee cheque or account payee lender draft”the told you terms are meant to hit onlycash transactions (while the apparent away from CBDT Rounded No. 387 old. 6-7-1984) i.age. ifthere is transactions which happen to be “if you don’t than from the an account payee cheque oraccount payee financial draft” nonetheless they don’t involve any direction of cash, the fresh saidtransactions wouldn’t be strike by aforementioned specifications because demonstratedhereunder. Inside the CIT compared to. Noida Toll Connection Co. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 260 (Delhi) it absolutely was heldthat when zero commission is generated in the cash, nevertheless same is affected from the journalentry when you look at the guides out of membership out of assessee as there are no solution off section269SS so as so you can guarantee punishment u/s 271D. Govind Ku) 253 ITR 103 (Raj). Inside Asst. CIT compared to. Jag Vijay Car Funds (P.) Ltd. (2001) 78 ITD 378 (Jp.)it actually was kept that head target regarding section 269SS is in order to avoid the system oftaking unaccounted dollars otherwise unaccounted dumps or even than simply by anaccount payee cheque otherwise account payee write. Although http://perfectloans24.com/payday-loans-fl/clearwater the defaults underneath the aforesaid parts manage usually get noticed during the time of assessment procedures just, these types of punishment legal proceeding are separate away from research legal proceeding. Even initiation of those proceedings is separate out of evaluation process and you may and this part 275 keeps been through extreme alter to take care of eg legal proceeding. Where in actuality the number wastransferred from the dumps courtesy import discounts, the new number inquestion will be considered have been credited inside the business’s lender accountthrough proper banking streams as per soul regarding area 269SS and you will, hence, theassessee providers cannot feel thought to has violated brand new specifications of section269SS Punishment process around point 271D or 271E was indeed independent process and had nothing to do with analysis proceedings or their result. Hence, CIT(A) was not justified into the cancelling the newest orders imposing penalty on the floor the investigations legal proceeding, in the course of hence, punishment around point 271D and you may 271E have been started was actually stored getting incorrect. Assessee in the is attractive prior to CIT(A) argued that your assessment purchases where punishment proceedings around section 271D and you will 271E have been started was basically quashed thus the new requests imposing punishment significantly less than area 271D and you will 271E also needs to be quashed. CIT(A) approved brand new contention and you will quashed the latest instructions towering penalty. It had been held you to as far as imposition from punishment lower than point 271D or 271E are alarmed, people was basically independent procedures and achieving nothing to do with assessment process otherwise their benefit. Ergo, CIT(A) was not warranted in cancelling brand new requests imposing punishment into ground that the research proceedings, in the course of and this, penalty significantly less than part 271D and you may 271E have been started had been stored is incorrect. Besides the proven fact that your order carrying the brand new examination so you can become incorrect hadn’t end up being latest, CIT(A) ought not to has actually terminated the new sales towering punishment about soil. Once the, CIT(A) had not adjudicated the matter on merits, the right way would be to remit issue from imposition of punishment for the CIT(A) to own fresh said, making every aspect unlock (Relevant Comparison Ages : 2009-2010 so you can 2011-12) – [DCIT v. C. Gangadhara Murthy – Day regarding Judgement : (ITAT Bangalore)].