TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271 D of Rs.40,000/- 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the transaction is between wife and husband and the provisions of Sec.269SS will have no application for such transactions and thereby erred in confirming the penalty. 4. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving business exigency for use of the money of wife. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 8.4.2004 showing income of Rs.51,69,460/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has accepted loan in cash of Rs.4,00,000 durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the year) is unsecured loan taken from Mrs. Saleem. The same amount has been shown in the balance sheet filed by the assessee as unsecured loan from Mrs. Saleem. He further observed that the provisions of section 269SS have never taken away the loan transactions between wife and husband and any exception can be made only by amending the provisions. Once the assessee has admitted the transaction as a loan, the violations of provisions of section 269SS are to be examined in the context of the language used in the provision itself. Observing as above and further observing that the assessee has failed to establishes any reasonable cause for contravening the provisions of section 269SS by accepting loans in excess of Rs.20,000, the ACIT hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time limit prescribed by the S.275 (1) ( c ) of the IT Act. He relied on the order of Tribunal, Chandigarh, Special Bench, in the case of Diwan Chand Amritlal Vs. DCIT (283 ITR (AT) 203) 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case, the penalty Proceedings to be initiated by the Addl. Commissioner and he has initiated the same vide show cause notice dated 22.8.2006 and penalty order passed on 29.11.2006 and the notice issued by the assessing officer vide notice dated 28.2.2006 is having no legal consequence since this would be without any jurisdiction since he is having no authority under law to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the IT Act. As such, notice issued by the Addl. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
