TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she did not have any known sources of funds, no penalty could be levied u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS. In view of the decision of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhani [ 2016 (6) TMI 1051 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Smt. Meera Devi Kumawat [ 2021 (10) TMI 967 - ITAT JAIPUR] and other case laws cited above, as applicable to the facts of the case, in our view, receipt by the assessee from his mother and brother is concerned, in our view the provisions of section 269SS / 271D of the Act do not stand attracted. There is nothing on record to show that the amount was taken as a loan or deposit by the assessee from his mother/brother and also there is nothing on record to establish that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, and accordingly levied penalty under section 271D of the Act equal to the amount of loan or deposit so taken or accepted in cash. 4. In appeal, the assessee submitted that he had taken the aforesaid unsecured loans from his brother and mother to deposit cash in bank account for payment due for purchase of residential house. He enclosed copy of purchase deed in respect of residential plot number K/B/18/3, survey number 77, village Raiya, Rajkot dated 06-06-2014. He further enclosed bank statement reflecting deposit of cash of ₹ 6 lakh and payment to Mr Ramesh Chandra Popat (Seller of residential plot) for purchase of residential house. The assessee submitted that the aforesaid amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of his ground of appeal. However, the specific facts of his case can be clearly distinguished from the facts of the cases cited by him. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus in the impugned appeal, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5 In the end result, the appeal is dismissed. Order passed under section 250 read with section 251 of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that it is settled law that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act can be delivered on a person if assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for accepting amount in cash. In the instant case, the accepted facts are that assessee had to invest the amount so borrowed for purchasing residential house. The assessee was a sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxmann.com 407 (Delhi - Trib.) held that acceptance of cash by husband from his wife cannot said to be taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS and therefore, no penalty under section 271D could be levied. In the case of Smt. Kusum Dhamani [2014] 47 taxmann.com 143 (Jaipur - Trib.) , ITAT held that where assessee running a proprietorship concern, took cash loans from her husband carrying on another proprietorship business on account of business exigencies for making payments to labourers and lenders, there being no violation of provisions of section 269SS, impugned penalty order passed under section 271D was to be set aside. In the case of ITO v. Tarlochan Singh [2003] 128 taxman 20 (Asr.) (Mag.) penalty under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wat v. JCIT [2021] 132 taxmann.com 21 (Jaipur - Trib.) and other case laws cited above, as applicable to the facts of the case, in our view, receipt of ₹ 5,21,300/- by the assessee from his mother and brother is concerned, in our view the provisions of section 269SS / 271D of the Act do not stand attracted. There is nothing on record to show that the amount was taken as a loan or deposit by the assessee from his mother/brother and also there is nothing on record to establish that the assessee was under an obligation to repay that the same (with our without interest) and therefore in view of the judicial precedents cited above, in our view provisions of section 269SS and 271D cannot be invoked for the amount of ₹ 5,21,300/-. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
