TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant case is between the assessee and her maternal uncle and aunt and there is nothing on record to show that the transaction lacks bona fides or the assessee came forward with a false case. The case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed - Tax Case Appeal No.968 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar For the Appellant : Mr.M.Veerabathiran Prasanth for Mr.R.Sivaraman For the Respondent : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 26.5.2017 in ITA.No.3410/Mds/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 5. Thus, it has to be seen as to whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for accepting the amount of ₹ 3 lakhs in cash. 6. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of pawn broking. The assessment for the year under consideration namely 2008-09 was completed on 30.3.2015. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee received loan from certain creditors in cash amounting to ₹ 3 lakhs during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. Having noticed the same, the Assessing Officer referred the case to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly relatives. With these facts, the assessee requested to drop the penalty proceedings. 8. However, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the stand taken by the assessee, confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice and levied penalty. The assessee was unsuccessful before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal. 9. In our considered view, the crucial aspect to be considered is as to whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for having received money in cash in contravention of the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. The Assessing Officer had no material to show that the case, as projected by the assessee, was false or for that matter, there was no transaction between the assessee and the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doing so, the Tribunal followed the decisions (i) of the Tribunal in the case of M.Raju Vs. ACIT [ITA.No.899/Mds/2006]; (ii) of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal [reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281]; and (iii) of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Trust Co. [reported in (2008) 303 ITR 99], and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the levy of penalty was not warranted. The Tribunal further held that the transaction between the father in law and the daughter in law was a genuine transaction and this was not in dispute because the amount was paid for purchase of a property. Before the Division Bench, the Revenue contended that the assessee had nowhere pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
