Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 44 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D for violating provision of section 269SS - amount received by the wife in cash from the husband by bonafide believing that the said amount need not have routed to her vide a bank transaction - genuineness of the transaction - Held that:- It appears from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that money was withdrawn by the husband from his accounts and was handed over by him to the assessee in cash. The genuineness of the amount involved is not in dispute. There is no loss to the Revenue. The assessee has further claimed that she was under a bonafide belief that she could have accepted the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/from her husband in cash and it was not obligatory for her to route the transaction only by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the tribunal without considering the claim of the assessee that the the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the transaction need not have been routed only through the Bank vide cheque or a draft, reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax to uphold the order imposing the penalty. Penalty cannot be levied on the assessee under Section 271D of the Act if the transaction between the parties is bona fide and the assessee has not acted deliberately or in defiance. In the circumstances of the case, merely in view of the technical mistake, the penalty could not have been levied on the assessee under Section 271D of the Act. In view of the bona fide belief of the assessee that the amount could have been received by her from her husband in cash, the penalty proceeding under Section 271D could not have been initiated against the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|