TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty. See Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company [Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company] - in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.320 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2013 - Mrs.R.BANUMATHI And Mr.K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI, J.) The Revenue has come forward with this appeal and the same was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cash taken by the assessee from her father-in-law was not a gift but only a loan. 4. In the appeal preferred before the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri.M.Raju V. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai in I.T.A.No.899/Mds/2006 and the decision of the Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer V. Sunil M.Kasliwal reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281 (Pune)(TM). The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of this Court reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company) and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, levy of penalty is not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction of receivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' being shown, no penalty shall be imposable. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, in the reply furnished before the Assessing Officer, the assessee clearly mentioned that her father-in-law - M.Kathirvel sent the amount of Rs.20,99,393/- directly to the seller of the house bought in the name of the assessee at Chennai and that necessary funds were provided by the assessee's father-in-law as a cash gift and the said cash gift was taken urgently by the assessee to get the purchase deed executed and no loan was taken from her father-in-law. Even though the assessee had not taken a specific plea of reasonable cause, it must be considered as applied to human action. Where the transactions are bonafide, penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the transaction between the daughter-in-law and father-in-law is a reasonable transaction and a genuine one owing to the urgent necessity of money to be paid to the seller. We find that this would amount to reasonable cause shown by the assessee to avoid penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. 11. Referring to the decision reported in [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Mad) (CIT V. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.), this Court in the decision reported in [2008] 303 itr 99 (Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company), held as follows: "In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal found on the facts that the transactions were genuine and the identity of the lenders was also satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
