Held, that the assessee took a loan from his family members for making cash payment to the sellers of land. Therefore, cash was taken under compelling circumstances and to meet business exigencies and to execute the purchase deed. After weighing the explanation offered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter for initiation of penalty proceedings under section\u00a0271D\u00a0to the Joint Commissioner which could not be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the Assessing Officer after raising a query took one of the possible view which was permissible under the law. The Principal Commissioner invoked clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to section\u00a0263\u00a0while setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer. No disclosure was made while issuing show-cause notice that the Principal Commissioner intended to invoke clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to section\u00a0263\u00a0in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer to conduct proper verification and enquiries invoking clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to section\u00a0263\u00a0was not justified. The Principal Commissioner held that the required particulars of stock-in-trade were not filled in the return of income. Then the land so purchased could only be treated as an investment to which provisions of section\u00a040A(3)\u00a0have no application.(AY. 2012-13).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Payment in cash in excess of prescribed limit-No dispute as to genuineness of transaction-Assessee taking loan from family members and making payment to sellers of land in cash-Disallowance not attracted to cash transaction for support to family members in immediate business needs-AO did not initiate penalty proceedings after due consideration-Order not prejudicial to revenue-Revision not justified. [S. 40A(3), 44AD, 269SS, 271D]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-aKj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41311","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41311"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41311\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41312,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41311\/revisions\/41312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}