D. Karunakara Rao Accountant Member - The are 7 appeals under consideration involving seven different assessee. These are the sister concerns belonging to Lodha Group. All these appeals are filed by the assessee involving asst. yr. 2009-10 against the common order of the CIT(A)-38, Mumbai, dt. 31st Dec, 2013 involving penalty under s. 27ID of the Act. Levy of penalty under s. 271D/271E of the IT Act is the issue in these appeals and the CIT(A) passed separate orders, date same involving penalty under s. 27IE. Since the issues raised by the assessee in all the seven appeals are identical. therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal-wise and ground-wise adjudication is given in the following paras. To start with, we shall undertake to adjudicate the appeal in the case of Lodha Builders (P) Ltd. in the succeeding paras involving two penalties under ss. 27ID and 271E of the Act.

2. This appeal ITA No. 476/Mum/2014 filed by the assessee on 21st Jan., 2014 is in connection with penalty levied under s. 27ID of the Act and the effective grounds raised in the appeal read as under :

"1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned C1T(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the Addl. CIT under s. 27ID of the Act on the basis that the appellant had violated the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act and also argued that there was no reasonable cause for such alleged contravention.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and 4n law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty imposed under s. 27ID of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant had not accepted any loan or deposit of money more so in contravention of the provisions of s. 269SSoftheAct.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty imposed under s. 27ID of the Act without appreciating the fact that the transactions of assigning or transferring rights/receivables and liabilities amongst the group companies by passing journal entries does not tantamount to taking or accepting of loan or deposit of money and it is not in contravention of s. 269SS of the Act. Hence, the impugned penalty levied under s. 27ID of the Act ought to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the making of journal entries in the books of the respective parties for the impugned purpose is also one of the recognized modes of assigning or transferring the rights/receivables/liabilities in relation to genuine business transactions and it does not result in a contravention of s. 269SS of the Act and in any event, the adjustment of accounts by passing such entries would tantamount to sufficient cause as contemplated by s. 273B of the Act.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied under s. 27ID of the Act without appreciating the fact that the transactions entered into amongst the group companies were genuine, bona fide and entered into on account of commercial exigency and were neither intended nor resulted in any tax evasion or concealment of income, the curbing of which was the avowed object behind the introduction of s. 269SS of the Act.

5. Without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the penalty levied under s. 27ID of the Act by applying the provisions of s. 273B and also not appreciating the detailed explanations, clarification and documents submitted by the appellant in support of the impugned genuine and bona fide business transactions, the rationale and commercial exigency for effectuating such transactions and the existence of reasonable cause for making journal entries for assigning or transferring the rights/receivables and liabilities amongst the group companies...."

2.1 In another appeal ITA No. 481/Mum/2014 involving the pe