TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal has confirmed the said finding of fact. Being a pure finding of fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In fact, the assessee himself has relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income -Tax V. Balaji Traders reported in (2006 (12) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Deccan Designs (India) P. Ltd. reported in (2010 (7) TMI 818 - Madras High Court) wherein this Court clearly held that unless there is any inconsistency in the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal or the Authorities concerned, the Court should not interfere with such a finding of fact. - Decided against assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.1490 of 2007 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh borrowals to settle pending bills on that date itself in order to book further consignment of dhall to take the benefit of competitive prices available on that date? 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that the assessee is not pressing the first substantial question of law admitted by this Court. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, it is not necessary to go into the first substantial question of law. Accordingly, we are deciding this appeal on the second and third substantial questions of law alone. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is engaged in the business of trading dhall. During the scrutiny of the report of the Auditor filed along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meeting the commitments of the assessee firm the above borrowals have been made in cash which amounts to a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Income-tax Act. It is contended that since the receipts were made in cash in order to meet business exigencies and the bonafides of these transactions are clearly established, penalty u/s 271D should not be levied. As is clear from the explanation, all the loans were accepted in cash to make cash deposits in the assessee's bank account so that demand drafts could be prepared in the names of the creditors. It is seen that all the creditors are regular suppliers of the assessee from whom the assessee makes frequent credit purchases, and there was no urgency to make the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who set aside the penalty holding as follows: On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that 271D is not leviable as demand draft were found to be genuine, confirmation letters have been filed and the identity of the creditors have been placed on record. Concurring with the decisions of the Honourable Tribunal and applying to the facts of our case, I deem it necessary to delete the penalty or ₹ 6,60,000/- imposed u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. 5. As against the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dropping the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade out any compelling situation in which he was compelled to take cash loans due to business exigencies. Instead, the assessee has made a case on the bonafides or genuineness of the cash transfers and the identity of the persons to claim relief from the rigours of the penalty provisions of Section 271D. 10. In this regard, we find that the plank of the genuineness of transfers relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) to grant relief cannot be sustained as it is trite law that bereft of reasonable cause, the assessee cannot be exonerated from the rigorous penalty. It must be demonstrated beyond an iota of doubt that the cash loans were accepted under compelling circumstances. 11. In this regard, the legal position has been summed up in 94 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cogent material was produced in that direction. 12. Considering the present case on the anvil of aforesaid discussions, we find that there was no reasonable cause prevailing which can warrant the deletion of the penalty. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and uphold the order of the A.O., sustaining the penalty. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. On a perusal of the orders of the Authorities below we find that the core issue involved in this appeal is whether the explanation gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
