TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.7792/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Pramod Jain, FCA For The Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 6th Septemfebr, 2018 passed by the CIT(A)-21, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee in various grounds has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty of ₹ 3,25,000/- levied by the JCIT u/s 271D of the IT Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives salary income from Sant Nirankari Public School, New Delhi and Income from other sources. She filed her return of income on 18th December, 2012 declaring the total income of ₹ 2,34,320/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at ₹ 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 ₹ 57,538/- on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is not a loan but a financial help as appellant is not required to pay back the amount is not found to be convincing in the absence of any confirmation from respective donor / payee - there is simple assertion made by the appellant/AR without any evidence in support. As per specific provisions of Act, case of the appellant does not come under the purview of exception clauses mentioned in the provisions appended to section 269SS of the Act, therefore, plea of the assessee that since amounts have been accepted from persons in the blood relation above provisions are not applicable, does not found any merit. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinct and not found to be applicable in the instant case. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant in the instant case has failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause - submissions of the appellant that money was required and provided by her relatives on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273 B of the Act. Since the assessee had satisfactorily established 'reasonable cause' under section 273B of the Act, he must be deemed to have established sufficient cause for not invoking the penal provisions of sections 271D and 27IE of the Act against him. The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. It is a fact that the assessee during the impugned assessment year has accepted cash loan of ₹ 3,25,000/- from her parents and brother i.e., ₹ 1,25,000/- from father Shri Darshan Singh Gujral, ₹ 1,00,000/- from her mother Smt. Joginder Kaur and ₹ 1 lakh from Shri Gurdeep Singh Gujral. The capacity of the loan creditors is not in dispute since the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order has accepted such loan. However, the JCIT levied penalty of ₹ 3,25,000/- u/s 271D on the ground that the assessee has accepted cash loan in violation of the provisions of section 269SS and there was no urgency in accepting such cash loan for which there was no reasonable cause. It is the submission of the ld. counsel that she has accepted cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the cost of stamp duty required for purchase of a property. It is the case of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee was under bona fide belief that there was no breach of any pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
