Only paid members can access this page.
Buy this Document - Rs. 500/- only - or - Subscribe Annual Package
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SUNIL KUMAR GOEL - 2009 (3) TMI 131 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - Income Tax
......... impugned act to avoid any tax liability. Furthermore, there is no dispute about the fact that the instant cash transactions of the respondent assessee were with the sister concern and that these transactions were between the family and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts and which has no tax effect, in our view establishes reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act. Since the respondent assessee had satisfactorily established reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act he must be deemed to have established sufficient cause for not invoking the penal provisions (sections 271D and 271E of the Act) against him. 18. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in either of the aforesaid two appeals, i.e., I. T. A. Nos. 777 and 778 of 2008, and accordingly, the said appeals are hereby dismissed.