TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 269T was not bonafide transaction and the same was made with a view to evade tax. If it is so, then according to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. [ 2012 (6) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] no penalty is imposable either under section 271D or under section 271E as the explanation submitted by the assessee would be considered to be reasonable cause under section 273B. We hold that it is not a fit case where levy of penalty either under section 271D or under section 271E is justified. The same are deleted and the appeals filed by assessee are allowed. - ITA NO. 720, 721/MUM/2011 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2015 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ,JJ. Appellant by : Shri M. Rajshirke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Loan taken 14.10.2002 25,000/- 2. Vikas S. Bhoite Loan taken 14.10.2002 25,000/- Total 50,000/- The aforementioned loans were returned back in the assessment year 2004-05 as follows: Sr.No. Name of the party Transaction Date of tranaction Amount (Rs.) 1. R.D.Bhoite Loan taken 10.03.2004 25,000/- 2. Vikas S. Bhoite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before AO and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad), in which it has been held that where money was received for commercial expediency and necessitated by business and there was no revenue loss, levy of penalty under section 271D would not be justified. 3.1 Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj), ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Flat and Housing Promoters, 303 ITR (AT) 453(Chd), wherein it has been held that where creditors were agriculturists in remote villages and they did not have any bank account be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch contention of the assessee has not been discarded or disproved. It is also not mentioned in the penalty order that the aforementioned amount taken by the assessee in violation of section 269SS and repayment thereof in violation of section 269T was not bonafide transaction and the same was made with a view to evade tax. If it is so, then according to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (supra), no penalty is imposable either under section271D or under section 271E as the explanation submitted by the assessee would be considered to be reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act. For the sake of completeness the observations of their Lordships from para-25 of the said de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
