Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 818 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271E - violation of provisions of section 269T - Cash loan between relatives - AO noticed that the assessee has taken money from her husband - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there is no dispute between parties that the assessee has received loan from her husband and re-paid the loan to him. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Deepika vs. ACIT [2017 (10) TMI 1405 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal has held that the loan transactions between the close relatives would not attribute penalty u/s 271D In the case of M. Yeshodha [2013 (2) TMI 211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has taken the view that the transaction of loan between father-in-law and daughter-in-law cannot be subject matter of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. In the instant case, the claim of the assessee is that these transactions are only gift transactions. However, the assessee appears to have failed to substantiate the same and hence the tax authorities have taken the view that the impugned transactions are loan transactions. The assessee was constrained to offer explanations relating to business exigencies only for the reason that the tax authorities have considered these transactions as loan transactions. CIT(A) has accepted the explanation of business exigency and accordingly deleted the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Since the transactions have been entered between assessee and her husband, we are of the view that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M Yeshodha(supra) may be conveniently applied here.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|