9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal of the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271D of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The ld. AR Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. submits that the assessment of the assessee was completed under scrutiny accepting the returned income. He drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order and submits that the Assessing Officer recorded with regard to the cash deposited in ICICI Bank and Central Bank of India. The assessee given explanation to the same as the said deposits were out of money withdrawn from salary, gold loan and person loan, proving the same, certificate issued by the Central Bank of India towards gold loan and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee obtained cash as gift from his father-in-law. The Assessing Officer fully satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee regarding cash deposit as found in the ICICI Bank and Central Bank of India. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the submissions of the assessee as the cash obtained in order to purchase of property from his father-in-law as gift, warranting no violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. We find that similar identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Mani Sundaram v. ITO (supra), wherein, the Tribunal, while deciding the issue by placing reliance in the case of Ms. Nanda Kumari v. ITO in TCA No. 968 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018 of Hon'ble Madras High Court, held that no penalty under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial to disbelieve the said property transaction, all that is required to be seen is as to whether the explanation offered was reasonable. Admittedly, the amount was borrowed by the assessee from her maternal uncle and maternal aunt. 10. In more or less identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court granted relief to the assessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Smt.M.Yesodha [reported in (2013) 351 ITR 265]. In the said case, the assessee claimed to have taken a loan of Rs. 20,99,393/- from her father in law for purchasing a property. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee had obtained the said loan in cash from her f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 273B of the Act and that therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the genuineness of the transaction was not disputed. 11. Even before us, Mrs.R. Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the provision namely Section 273D of the Act uses the expression 'reasonable cause' and not the expression 'sufficient cause' and that the Authorities below rightly found that the reason given by the assessee was not a reasonable cause. 12. However, a similar contention was rejected by the Division Bench in the decision in the case of Smt.M. Yesodha wherein it was held that even though the assessee had not taken a specific plea of reasonable cause, it must be considered as applied to human action an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
