TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness needs. It is further pointed out that the Tax Payer being a Civil Contractor required urgent funds and he approached his brothers Shri Jayeshbhai Thakkar and Shri Raghubhai S. Bhatt and received cash for incurring day-to-day business expenditure. From those facts, it was pointed out that there was nothing to suggest that the aforesaid transactions were not genuine. Similarly, as regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ALA JJ. Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s): 1, ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2664 OF 2010: (Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are at the instance of the revenue and is directed against the order dated August 22, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmeda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee having shown reasonable cause for his failure, the penalty should not be imposed. 4. The Tribunal below had recorded that except in one transaction of Rs.20,383/- the amounts were received in cash from Shri Jayeshbhai Thakkar and Shri Raghubhai S. Bhatt, who were relatives of the Tax Payer. It was pointed out that an advance of Rs.2 lakh has been given by the Tax Payer to Shri Raghubhai S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urgent funds and he approached his brothers Shri Jayeshbhai Thakkar and Shri Raghubhai S. Bhatt and received cash for incurring day-to-day business expenditure. From those facts, it was pointed out that there was nothing to suggest that the aforesaid transactions were not genuine. 5. Similarly, as regards the question of penalty imposed on the Tax Payer under Section 271-E of the Act, the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding on the question of reasonableness as provided under the Act is basically the question of facts and both the authorities below having concurrently found in favour of the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with such concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence. 7. Therefore, no substantial question of law being involved, we dismiss Tax Appeal No.2664 of 2010 summa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
