9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271D amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- for the alleged contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. After hearing both the parties we find that there was a survey in the premises of the assessee wherein excess stock of Rs. 12.50 lakhs was found. Further, some excess cash was also found. Ultimately, the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 12.50 lakhs on account of stock and Rs. 6 lakhs cash in the hands of two sons at Rs. 3 lakhs each and accordingly return was filed. Later on, the assessee recorded a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs in the books of account at Rs. 3 lakhs each and gave credit to the sons of the assessee. This was treated as loan in cash in violation of section 269SS of the Act and penalty proceedings u/s 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of CIT(A). 6. After considering the rival submissions we find that actually the assessee has not taken any loan from the sons but excess cash which was found during the survey has been surrendered in the names of two sons of the assessee. Later on, when entries were required to be made against the surrendered income then the same was shown as loans from two sons. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v Sunil Kumar Goel (supra) wherein the assessee had accepted cash loans on various dates exceeding Rs. 20,000/- from relatives, penalty was held to be not imposable. It was held as under:- "Held, that there was no dispute about the fact that the cash transactions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271E of the Act. The impugned order of penalty is cancelled. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have been confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions of section 269T of the 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. 7. Thus, it is clear from the above two decisions that if the transactions are between relatives and without any malafide intention, then penalty is not leviable. 8. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
