9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee acted bonafide and that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. No error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.279 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2013 - R. Banumathi And K. Ravichandra Baabu For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji Standing Counsel. For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the levy of penalty by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 3. Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that though the assessee is partner of the firms, he has taken loan from the firms by cash in his capacity as Proprietor of Reliance Realtors and the Assessing Officer had recorded factual finding and in view of the consequences of violation of Section 269SS, justified in imposing penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Learned counsel for Revenue endeavoured to distinguish the cases relied upon by the Tribunal and submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded factual finding that money has been advanced from the firms as loan and the same was debited from the accounts of the proprietary concern which would show that the transactions between the firms and the assessee we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m" and deleted the penalty. 6. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) [(2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj)], it was held that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions and that the inter se transactions between the partner and firm are not governed by the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. 7. Relying upon the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai [(1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC); Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum.A.B.Shanti [(2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) [(2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj)], Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nough reasons offered by the assessee to justify the cash transactions which it made with its sister concern" and that consequences of violation of Section 269SS is not attracted. 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Trust Co. [(2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad)], the Division Bench of this Court held that "if there were genuine and bonafide transactions and the tax payer could not get a Loan or Deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty". 11. Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.M.Chdambaram Pillai [(1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC); Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum.A.B.Shanti [(2002) 255 ITR 258 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
