TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess exigencies, the immediate requirement of cash cannot be ruled out. Further, the relationship of the persons with the assessee also establishes the genuineness of the transaction. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find this to be a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271D & 271E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA. Nos. 3072 & 3073/AHD/2016 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri Pradeep G. Tulsion, AR Respondent by : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA Nos. 3072 3073/Ahd/2016 are two appeals by the assessee preferred against the two separate orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is taken from the brother and the father. The ld. counsel vehemently stated that the legislative intent in prohibiting the acceptance and repayment of money in cash over and above ₹ 20,000/- is to check the unaccounted money and not to hit the genuine business need. The ld. counsel prayed for the deletion of the penalty. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the A.O. 6. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is not dispute that the assessee has taken the amount from brother and father in cash. There is also no dispute that the repayment has also been made in cash. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi 255 ITR 258 has held that the object of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified. 7. The facts of the impugned appeal show that Shri Bhupendrabhai Patel was also an employee of the assessee and his salary was also credited in the same account where the impugned acceptance/repayment of cash was found and is akin to current account. The amount of Shri Bhadresh Patel is also akin to current account. Considering the nature of business of the assessee and its business exigencies, the immediate requirement of cash cannot be ruled out. Further, the relationship of the persons with the assessee also establishes the genuineness of the transaction. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find this to be a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271D 271E of the Act. We accordingly set aside the findings of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
