9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as unexplained investment. 2. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as Unexplained Investment: The assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was recovered from loans advanced to close relatives in earlier years. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, citing the absence of proof for the loans given and recovered. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was an agriculturist managing the financial affairs of his family, including his wife and HUF. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient agricultural income and the loans were advanced out of this income and sale of agricultural land. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on surmises and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,50,000. 2. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The AO added Rs. 3,00,000 to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. This included Rs. 2,00,000 from Narayan Ram Chhaba HUF and Rs. 1,00,000 from Smt. Patasi Devi (assessee's wife). The CIT(A) confirmed these additions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's HUF and wife had sufficient agricultural income and the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the department accepted the major portion of the loans from these two persons and there was no basis to treat the remaining amount as unexplained. 3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 9,50,000 under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, which prohibits acceptance of loans or deposits in cash exceeding a specified limit. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were genuine and the assessee, being an agriculturist, was not aware of the technicalities of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the case of Dr. Deepak Muchala, where it was held that a professional could not be presumed to have knowledge of the law. The Tribunal concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the transactions and deleted the penalty. Separate Judgments Delivered: Judgment by Judicial Member: The Judicial Member deleted the additions and penalty, emphasizing the genuineness of the transactions and the reasonable cause for the assessee's actions. Judgment by Accountant Member: The Accountant Member agreed with the deletion of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 68 but suggested further verification for the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 and the penalty under Section 271D. Third Member Judgment: The Third Member concurred with the Judicial Member, deleting both the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 and the penalty under Section 271D, citing the genuine nature of the transactions and the reasonable cause for the assessee's actions. Conclusion: The Tribunal, by majority decision, deleted the additions of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 and the penalty of Rs. 9,50,000, accepting the assessee's explanations and the genuineness of the transactions.
|
