9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkari Public School, New Delhi and 'Income from other sources.' She filed her return of income on 18th December, 2012 declaring the total income of Rs. 2,34,320/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs. 34,12,062/- wherein he disallowed a aprt of the long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the IT Act apart from making addition of Rs. 57,538/- on account of interest and Rs. 8,160/- under the head 'Salary.' During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had taken cash loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- from Shri Darshan Singh Gujral, Rs. 1,00,000/- from Smt. Joginder Kaur and Rs. 1 lakh from Shri Gurdeep Singh Gujral and, therefore, she has violated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for accepting the cash loan from his father, mother and brother to the extent of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The provisions of section 271D are specific which provide if a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken to accepted. However, from the submissions of the appellant, it is evident that she has accepted the cash loans from her father, mother and brother as she has to make payment towards the stamp duty of house property purchased by her for which she was lacking fund. The submissions made during appellate stage that amount in question i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deal and if there was real need / shortage of fund, appellant could have taken the money well in advance through banking channel. Acceptance of cash whether from blood relation is not allowable or falling in the exceptional clause of section 269SS. Therefore, no interference is called for to the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty, which is confirmed." 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had produced the confirmations from the parents and brother of the assessee which were accepted by the Assessing Officer and no addition on this account was made. Further, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid.' Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani reported in 260 ITR 590, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that when the loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Sood vs. Jt. CIT in ITA No.1831/Del/2016, order dated 20.06.2018, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271D of the IT Act holding that when the assessee has taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the JCIT and upheld by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee in the instant case, has clearly violated the provisions of section 269SS. There was no urgent need for taking the loan in the shape of cash and the assessee could have taken the loan by account payee cheque or bank draft. Since the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS and did not show any reasonable cause, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) being in accordance with the law should be upheld. 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. I have also con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit worthiness is not in dispute. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. Yeshodha (supra) has held that 'the transaction of loan between father in law and daughter in law in cash cannot be subject matter of levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (supra) has held that 'a family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273 B of the Act' and, therefore, the provisions of section 271D are not applicable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
