2019 (4) TMI 1528 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - Default u/s 269SS - HELD THAT - Manisha Prakash Amin vs.- JCIT 2011 (5) TMI 1073 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein it was held that the transactions between relatives involving receipt of loan in cash are not in the nature of loans or deposits as envisaged in section 269SS of the Act and the penalty imposed under section 271D was accordingly cancelled As relying on ANANT HIMATSINGKA VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA. 2011 (11) TMI 796 - ITAT KOLKATA held that the loan transaction between son-in law and father-in-law for giving a support and help was not a loan or deposit in stricter sense of section 269SS of the Act and the same having been given only as a financial support, the relevant transaction did not fall in the ambit of section 269SS of the Act. In our opinion, the ratio of these decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal is squarely applicable in the present case, where the loans in question were received by the assessee in cash from her daughter and son-in-law and applying the same, we hold that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable. We accordingly cancel the said penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271D for taking unsecured loans in cash in contravention of section 269SS.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty under section 271D

The appeal was against the penalty imposed under section 271D by the Assessing Officer for taking unsecured loans in cash, contravening section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The loans were taken by the assessee from her daughter and son-in-law, not through account payee cheques or bank drafts. The ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty, stating that the loans were not immediately utilized for business purposes, indicating no urgency based on business exigencies. The assessee's argument that the loans were for urgent business requirements was not accepted. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed by the JCIT.

Issue 2: Applicability of section 269SS to transactions between relatives

The Tribunal considered whether the provisions of section 269SS were strictly applicable to transactions between relatives. The assessee argued that the loans received in cash from her daughter and son-in-law did not fall under section 269SS. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where penalties under section 271D were canceled in similar cases involving loans between relatives. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not sustainable. The Tribunal canceled the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271D, as the loans received in cash from relatives were not considered to fall under the purview of section 269SS. The Tribunal's decision was based on precedents where penalties were canceled in similar cases involving loans between relatives, establishing a consistent interpretation of the law in such scenarios.