9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as under: "1. That the transactions were between family members/spouse for acquiring a house for their living and all had pooled their resources which were genuine transactions for acquiring the property for mutual benefit of the family and the intention was not to evade taxes. 2. That transactions of loan between husband and wife for genuine reason and necessity does not attract the provisions of section 269SS in Income Tax Act, 1961. That transaction is between the family for genuine case and genuineness of the transactions has not been doubted. A Sri Nikhil Banik Mazumdar Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkatta) b. Punjab And Haryana High court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel reported in 315 ITR 163. 3.That bona fides and genuiness of the transaction would constitute a "reasonable cause" for not invoking the provisions of sections 271D of the Act, Relying upon the judgment rendered by this court in CIT v. Saini Medical Store [2005] 277 ITR 420. The assessee had been successful to show "reasonable cause" and there was no avoidance of tax or tax evasion at the hands of the assessee. 4. That order passed by the CIT(A), Gorakhpur by conferring the penalty impose by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cash. The assessee relied upon decision of Kolkatta-tribunal Kolkata in the case of Shri Nikhil Banik Mazumdar v. JCIT, in ITA Nos. 453 and 454/KOAL/2016, dated 10th January, 2018 . It was observed by ld. CIT(A) that the loan of Rs. 22,75,000/- granted to wife was duly shown by her husband in his Balance Sheet of Proprietary concern, IPS .The Balance Sheet and tax audit report of IPS was filed . The ld. CIT(A) observed that out of total loan of Rs. 22,75,000/- advanced by Proprietary concern of husband IPS, a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- was transferred through RTGS, while rest of amount of Rs. 16,75,000/- was advanced through amounts withdrawn from the current account of the Proprietary concern IPS and given to the assessee by husband namely Shyam Chandra Pandey, Prop. of M/s. IPS in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee, as the assessee has failed to show reasonable cause for accepting cash loan of Rs. 16,75,000/-, which in view of ld. CIT(A) could have been easily taken by assessee through banking channel. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 16,75,000/- levied by AO against the assessee u/s 271D of the 1961 Act, for accepting cash loan of Rs. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad observed that the assesse has taken loan from M/s Industrial Power Solution (IPS), 29-B, New Awas Vikas Colony, Betial Hata(South), Gorakhpur, in cash to the tune of Rs. 16,75,000/- during the year under consideration, in violation of provisions of Section 269SS. The AO issued SCN dated 04.04.2016 (served on assessee on 04.04.2016 itself) as to why penalty u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, be not levied against the assessee as the assessee has taken loan in cash to the tune of Rs. 16,75,000/- in violation of Section 269SS of the 1961 Act. The assessee did not submitted any reply/explanation to the AO in response to SCN dated 04.04.2016. One more notice was issued by AO, and that too remained un-complied with. The assessee despite two opportunities provided by the AO, did not submit any explanation before the AO. Section 269SS at the relevant time, inter-alia, provided that no loan or deposit can be taken by any person otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, if the loan or deposit or aggregate amount of such loan or deposit, is twenty thousand or more. The violation/contravention of Section 269SS leads to levy of penalty u/s 271D, of a sum equal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the [Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the [Assessing Officer] has been allowed a reasonable opportunity- (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
