TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 878 & 879/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2019 - Shri Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri R.A. Verma (Tax Practitioner) For the Revenue : Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT) ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : These two appeals by the assessee are against two separate orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-3, Jaipur both dated 02.05.2019 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271E and 271D of the IT Act for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals except the provisions of the Act under which the penalty was levied. The grounds raised in respect of penalty levied under section 271E in ITA No. 878/JP/2019 are as under :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the CIT (A)-3, Jaipur against penalty order u/s 271E of the IT Act is illegal and bad in law as penalty imposed u/s 271E was barred by limitation and no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in his Asset. Order. 2. On the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1D as well as 271E were imposed by the Additional CIT vide order dated 26.02.2015 holding that the assessee is in default within the meaning of section 269SS and 269T and consequently liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E respectively for a sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- each equivalent to the amount of receipt of the amount in cash and repayment of the same. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and contended that the assessee wanted to apply for liquor shop from Excise Department of Rajasthan and for that purpose the assessee was required to deposit License Fee within a stipulated time, thus the assessee has collected an amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- in cash from his three family members of ₹ 2,50,000/- each on urgent basis. The application of the assessee was not accepted by the Excise Department and the License sought by the assessee for liquor shop was not allotted to the assessee, therefore, subsequently the assessee refunded the said amount to the family members. Thus the assessee claimed that it was a payment transaction of receipt of money from the family members and repayment of the same. The assessee also claimed that the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived a sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- in cash and also repaid the same in cash. Therefore, there is a violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T and consequently the penal provisions of section 271D and 271E are attracted in this case. The assessee has not brought any material on record to show the urgency/expediency for accepting the amount in cash and then again repayment of the same in cash. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has distinguished the facts while passing the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has received a sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- in cash from three persons as under :- Sl.No. Name of the person Amount Date 1 Shri Mool Chand Ola S/o Shri Laxman Ram, Kudali, Sikar ₹ 2,50,000/- 24.02.2011 2 Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and genuineness of the transaction, would constitute a reasonable cause for not invoking the provisions of sections 271D and 271E of the Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the respondent-assessee has been successful to show reasonable cause . And accordingly the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal returned a finding, that acceptance of the return of payments received by the respondent-assessee, by way of cash, at the hands of the respondent-assessee, ought to be overlooked, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. As against the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, that on eight different occasions different amounts ranging from ₹ 10,000 to 30,000 were taken by way of cash, by the respondent-assessee as loans in conscious and deliberate disregard of obligation envisaged under section 269SS of the Act. And the aforesaid loans were then returned by way of cash, again, in conscious disregard of the obligation envisaged under section 269T of the Act. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellantrevenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act is a finding of fact based on appreciation of material on record. It does not give rise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (p. 425) 14. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording its conclusion that a reasonable cause had been shown by the respondent-assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relied on the fact that the respondent-assessee had produced his cash books, depicting loans taken by him unilaterally before the revenue. Another fact taken into consideration was, that no prejudice was caused to the revenue, in the instant action of the respondent-assessee inasmuch as, the respondent-assessee did not attempt by the impugned act to avoid any tax liability. Furthermore, there is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
