2024 (2) TMI 534 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271D - assessee has availed cash loan in contravention of provision of section 269SS - Assessee has submitted that though the assessee has initially availed loans from close relatives, which were subsequently the loans, were treated as gift and credited to his capital account, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is unwarranted - HELD THAT - As perused the details furnished by the assessee, wherein, the assessee furnished copies of the confirmation letters from the lender, which were filed before the authorities below and find that assessee s father-in-law as well as assessee s wife, who have confirmed that the loan amount shall be treated as gift. The assessee s mother passed away and produced death certificate. Moreover, the assessee has shown reasonable cause for receiving money towards purchase of machineries. Thus, we are of the opinion that the explanation offered against show cause notice before the authorities below were reasonable and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is untenable. As relying on case of Ms. Nanda Kumari v. ITO 2019 (1) TMI 413 - MADRAS HIGH COURT we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the penalty levied under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for receiving cash loans in contravention of section 269SS of the Act.

Issue 1: Background and Penalty Initiation
The assessee, a proprietor of M/s. Surabi PVC Pipes, filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, declaring taxable income. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act due to the acceptance of cash for the sale of immovable property, contravening section 269SS. The penalty of &8377;8,37,550 was levied, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

Issue 2: Assessee's Argument
The assessee contended that the cash loans received from close relatives were treated as gifts and credited to the capital account. The counsel relied on legal precedents to support the argument that the penalty under section 271D was unwarranted.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Analysis
The Tribunal reviewed the submissions made by the assessee, including confirmation letters from the lenders stating the loans were to be treated as gifts. The Tribunal found the explanations reasonable, especially given the circumstances of the loans from family members. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of assessing whether the cause shown for receiving cash was reasonable.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271D was unjustified, considering the genuineness of the transactions and the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act.

The judgment highlights the importance of assessing the reasonableness of causes presented by taxpayers in cases involving cash transactions, especially when dealing with loans from family members. The decision serves as a reminder that penalties should only be imposed when there is concrete evidence to support non-compliance with tax laws, as demonstrated in this case.