TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.4.2009 and 14.5.2009 but the assessee did not avail the opportunity to give any explanation justifying the transaction of accepting loan of ₹ 5 lacs from Jugraj Singh in cash in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act - cash book showing deposit of ₹ 5 lacs from Jugraj Singh and on the other side there was entry of ₹ 5,10,726/- in cash deposited with PSB is submitted - even this was unsigned and in any case this by itself would not justify taking of loan in cash from Jugraj Singh. There is no reason to interfere in the order - Tribunal had recorded finding of reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act and on that basis, it was held that no substantial question of law arose. – Decided against Assessee. - ITA No. 111 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-3-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 20.9.2012, Annexure A-6, passed by the Income Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant firm in as much as it did not attempt by the impugned act to avoid any tax liability? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act in the hands of the appellant firm on the basis of premature observations, findings and investigations? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The appellant firm as a kaccha aartia (Commission agent in food gains) was dealing with agriculturists. It was carrying out cash transactions with respect to payments to the agriculturists of the sale proceeds of their agriculture produce which was sold through it as an intermediary.The business of the appellant firm which was already facing financial crisis due to lack of liquidity, was burdened with a full availed credit facility of Rs.5 lacs from Punjab and Sind bank.It was further adversely hit when on one part the bank was pressing hard for the repayment of the outstanding dues and on the other hand, the real brothers of one of the partners of the appellant firm namely Shri Charan Dass who had put joint family property as a security with the bank was pressu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal have concurrently come to the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act for accepting loan in cash and thus, there was violation of section 269SS of the Act and accordingly penalty under section 271D of the Act was rightly levied. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 8. The findings recorded by the Assessing officer vide order dated 28.11.2008, Annexure A.1 read thus:- Assessment in its case was completed vide order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.11.2008. At the time of framing the assessment, it was observed by the Income Tax Officer I, Moga that the appellant firm had accepted a loan of Rs. 5 lacs in cash on 29.10.2005 from Shri Jugraj Singh s/o Shri Gurdev Singh r/o Village Randiala for verification of facts necessary copy of account of the said person was called for by the AO which revealed that the assessee accepted cash loan of Rs. 5 lacs on 29.10.2005. Accordingly the Income Tax Officer I, Moga referred the proceedings under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as depositor), any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if (a) The amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit, or (b) On the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid, or (c) The amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b). Is twenty thousand rupees or more. In the case in hand, the appellant has accepted a cash loan amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- from one person which is very clear violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. The appellant s counsel plea that it was due to exigency of circumstances is also irrelevant as the loan was taken for repayment of another bank loan and which could very well taken by the cheque. Further, the facts of the case laws cited by the counsel are different and not applicable to the facts of the case. The AO in this case provided repeated opportunities t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsacted between the family has not been established as against in the case of CIT v. Sunil Goel (supra). The assessee has to establish the business exigency in the present case as in the case of CIT v. Sunil Goel (supra). In the present case, no urgency or business exigency has been established by raising a loan of Rs.5 lacs and that too on 29.10.2005. The assessee has not produced before any of the authorities below or even before us that there was a dead line that the amount was required to be deposited with the bank only on 29.10.2005 and thereafter the assessee was to be heavily penalized or some dire consequences were in the offing by the bank. In the absence of any business exigency, the reasonable cause cannot be established. The assessee has not brought on record before any of the authorities below or even before us that the persons from whom loan has been taken is an agriculturist and does not maintain any bank account. Nothing has been brought on record that the assessee being Kacha Arhtia is also an agriculturist and does not maintain any bank account. The assessee could not establish that the said transaction was without any intention to avoid tax, since ignorance of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The effort of the learned counsel for the appellant was to reappraise the material so as to record a finding that there was reasonable cause for the assessee to have accepted loan of Rs. 5 lacs from Shri Jugraj Singh in cash. The view which has been taken by the Assessing Officer, CIT (A) and the Tribunal concurrently is a plausible view and it cannot be said that there was any error in the approach adopted by them. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for interference. The scope of Section 260A relates to matters where substantial question of law arises for consideration. 12. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be noticed that therein the Tribunal had recorded finding of reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act and on that basis, it was held that no substantial question of law arose. The said cases were decided on individual facts involved therein and no advantage can be derived by the learned counsel for the appellant from the same. 13. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal stands dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
