Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 790 - ITAT RAIPURPenalty u/s 271E - repayment of loan in cash - Default u/s 269T - HELD THAT:- As assessee on the aspect of bonafide belief on account of ignorance of law, we do not see any plausible reason to consider the plea of the Ld. AR. In a similar case, ITAT, Raipur has recently adopted a view regarding violation of provisions of section 269T in the case of Kamaljeet Kaur Gill v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax in [2023 (9) TMI 432 - ITAT RAIPUR] wherein is equally applicable in the present case, wherein held that where assessee made repayment of loan in cash for reasons that she was insisted by financer of loan to do so due to poor track record of clearance of cheque and also she was ignorant of provisions of section 269T, since there were multiple other methods of repayment of loan envisaged in section 269T apart from payment through cheque and assessee had failed to come forth with any reasonable cause for such payment in cash, impugned penalty u/s 271E imposed upon her was justified. Ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Addition u/s 69A - Source of Cash deposit - Assessee contended that same is received in advance against the sale of property - Levy of penalty u/s 271D - Held that:- Since the AO had recorded a finding that the amount was the unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A and thus, chargeable income of the assessee. Impliedly, the stand of Ld. AO while treating the amount received in cash as assessee’s own money, establishes that it was neither any loan, a deposit nor specified sum. On one hand when the impugned cash receipts are characterized as assessee’s own money the same, on the other hand cannot be a specified sum received from someone else in contravention to provisions of section 269SS, therefore, the very foundation and prerequisite to bring such amount within the realm of section 269SS was lost. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271D r.w.s. 269SS by the Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore, is liable to be quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
|