2009 (11) TMI 1028 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the acceptance of cash loan from wife, applicability of section 269SS, and the initiation and imposition of penalty within the prescribed time limit.

Penalty u/s 271D - Applicability of Section 269SS:
The case pertains to the acceptance of a cash loan from the wife by the assessee, which was considered a violation of section 269SS of the Act. The assessing officer imposed a penalty u/s 271D for contravening the provisions. The assessee contended that the transaction between husband and wife should not fall under the purview of section 269SS as it was not a loan but an interest-free amount. However, the ACIT rejected this explanation, stating that once the transaction was admitted as a loan, the provisions of section 269SS needed to be examined. The ACIT held that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for contravening the provisions, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The assessee argued that the penalty order was time-barred, citing the provisions of S.275 and a judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Departmental Representative countered, stating that the penalty proceedings were initiated within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal ruled that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Addl. Commissioner were valid, and the notice issued by the assessing officer had no legal consequence in this regard. Ultimately, the penalty was deleted considering the nature of the transaction between husband and wife and the absence of interest or repayment conditions.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad addressed the appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad concerning the imposition of a penalty u/s 271D for accepting a cash loan from the wife, which was deemed a violation of section 269SS. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the transaction between husband and wife did not constitute a loan transaction under the law, especially considering the absence of interest and repayment conditions. The Tribunal emphasized the genuine nature of the borrowing and the mitigating circumstances due to the relationship between husband and wife. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271D was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The judgment was pronounced on 20.11.2009.