TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was categorically recorded that the impugned transactions could not be said to have been aimed at attempting to evade tax thereby causing loss to the revenue. Thus, the imposition of penalty under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act was not held to be justified. As recorded by the Tribunal that there was reasonable cause for entering into the above said transactions. The creditors from whom the cash was received and repaid were held to be genuine and confirmation to that act was obtained from the said persons and the transactions were not made for attempting to evade tax. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 248 of 2017(O&M) - - - Dated:- 17-7-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Denes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Charan Dass Ashok Kumar Vs. CIT, 365 ITR 367 wherein it was held by this Hon ble Court, under similar circumstances that where respondent failed to establish that there was reasonable cause in accepting any loan/deposit in cash, the action of the AO imposing penalty under Section 271D was justified. No such reasonable cause leading the acceptance of loan/deposits in cash by the respondent has been established in the instant case. Similar view was held by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Auto Pistion Mfg. CO. (P) Ltd, Vs. CIT, 355 ITR 414? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India (2001) 252 ITR 471 and Wood Ward Governors of India (P) Ltd. (2001) 118 taxman 433,745. According to the appellant-revenue, no reasonable cause leading to acceptance of loan/deposits in cash by the assessee had been established in the present case. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. 4. It has been recorded by the CIT(A) that in order to verify the bonafides of the impugned transactions in which cash deposits were received and repaid aggregating in excess of ₹ 20,000/-, a remand was sent to the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner who opined that persons who had deposited cash with the assessee and subsequently got it returned in cash were identifiable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d returned. The said impugned transactions also cannot be said to have been aimed at or attempting to evade tax, thereby causing loss to revenue. In such circumstances, it can reasonably be held that the breach of the statutory provisions contained in Section 269SS 269T of the Act flowed by a bonafide belief, which is ex-facie a venial breach. It may also be appreciated that the Hon ble Supreme Court, while hearing the constitutionality of the provisions of Section 269SS, observed that the undue hardship emanating from the said provision, perceived to be expropriatory in nature, is very much mitigated by the inclusion of Section 273B (2002) 255 ITR 258. Following the judicial precedents, including that of the jurisdictional High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively are hemmed in by the provisions of Section 273B of the Act which prescribes imposition of penalty in cases where contravention of the statutory provisions have been occasioned because of reasonable cause . Reasonable cause neither finds any definition, for, as held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Axadi Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India (2001) 252 ITR 471, attempting to give a specific meaning to the word reasonable is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space. Ordinarily, reasonable cause would mean an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds of the existence of a state of circumstances which (assuming them to be true), would reasonably lead any ordinary, prudent and cautious person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Piston Mfg. CO. Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , (2013) 355 ITR 414, the question was whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of that case, the explanation tendered by the assessee was not found to be reasonable and, therefore, the imposition of penalty was held to be valid. Such is not the position in the present case. Herein there was reasonable cause for entering into the transactions in question. Thus, the appellant cannot derive any advantage from the said decision. Similar was the position in Charan Dass Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 365 ITR 367. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. However, in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
