9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had accepted loans of Rs. 1, 50, 00, 000/- in cash from M/s. Laxmi Nrushingha Construction and Rs. 20, 00, 000/- in cash from M/s. S. S. Parida totalling to Rs. 1, 70, 00, 000/- during the financial year 2012-13 in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer sent a proposal to the Addl. CIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the I. T. Act. After rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Addl. CIT held that the assessee has accepted the loan/deposit of Rs. 1. 70 crores in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the I. T. Act and therefore is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the I. T. Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern operating in the same premises and having common partners may be considered to have a reasonable cause for accepting the loans in cash and, therefore, entitled to the relief u/s. 273B. In a very recent case of Sri Nikhil Banik Mazumdar v. JCIT, ITA Nos. 453 '&. 454/Kol/2016, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench vide their order dt. 10. 1. 2018, have held that cash loans obtained from family members who have given the same by way of their support and help to the assessee cannot come within the purview of section 269SS. In the case of the assessee, the following facts are evident: i) The so-called loans in cash were obtained from two sister concerns who had enough cash in hand to do so. ii) ii) Sri S. S. Parida as the managing d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding Rs. 20, 000/- in cash. 7. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by following the decisions of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of K. K. Enterprises (supra) and Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal Sri Nikhil Banik Mazumdar (supra). 8. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Engineers vs CIT, 294 ITR 599 has held as under: "This case law also comes to the rescue of the assessee. In the aforesaid decision it has been held that "Held, that there was no finding of the assessing authority, the appellate authority or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of the provisions of section 269 SS was not a genuine transaction. On the contrary, the return filed by the assessee was accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence we direct that the penalty be deleted. " 10. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court also in the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Geol, 315 ITR 163 held as under: In this case, the assessee has taken loan in cash on seven "occasions, during the financial year 1990-91 (Asstt. Year 1991- 92). The ld. AO has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that on account of his bona fide needs, he has taken loans, but his contention was rejected by the AO and penalty was imposed. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. However, on further appeal, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty. Revenue ITA No. 397 and 398/Ahd/2016 took the matter to the Hon'ble High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
