9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable explanation justifying these cash transactions, the impugned penalty u/s 271D is not leviable. See Raj Kumar Sharma (2007 (4) TMI 218 - RAJASTHAN High Court ) and Saini Medical Store (2005 (2) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court)and Sunil Kumar Goel (2009 (3) TMI 131 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT). Thus penalty is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 847 (JP.) OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2014 - R. P. TOLANI, AND T.R. MEENA, JJ. Rajesh Gupta for the Appellant. D.C. Sharma for the Respondent. ORDER R.P. Tolani, Judicial Member - This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 11-07-2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 pertaining to imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19,000/- 3. 24-03-2006 19,000/- 4. 27-03-2006 19,000/- 5 29-03-2006 13,000/- 6. 30-03-2006 10,000/- 7. 31-03-2006 19,000/- Total 1,15,000/- The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed as the cash deposits with in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act. . The assessee replied to the following effect as asked by the AO. (i) Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T (Jaipur Bench). (iii) CIT vs. Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd., 172 ITR 321 ( SC). (iv) Karnataka Ginning Pressing Factory vs. JCIT, 77 I TD 478. (v) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orisa (1969) 1970 AIR 253 (SC). (vi) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P H) 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) held that Smt. Asha Dhiamani was controlling the financial management and overall affairs of her concern and her husband was looking after only after tender work, therefore, the assessee explanation of the assessee was not proper. No proof of any business exigency has been filed. The statement of the husband that there was no option but to make payment in cash to the labourers and lenders on behalf of his wife and that the assessee and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum of equal to the amount of loan or deposit so taken or accepted. Section 273B is an overriding provision. According to the said provision, no penalty shall be imposable on a person or assessee for any failure, inter alia, referred to Section 271D if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The tribunal in its order has found that the genuineness of the deposits made by the assessee's brother Pankaj Sharma was not in doubt by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noticed that explanation given by the assessee that the deposits were obtained by him to satisfy the immediate business requirement but found that this has not been established. However, the Tribunal was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, which resulted in the infraction of law, the default is technical or venial which did not prejudice the interests of the Revenue as no tax avoidance or tax evasion was involved. To my mind, bona fide belief coupled with the genuineness of the transactions would constitute reasonable cause u/s 273B for not invoking the provisions of Section 271E of the Act. The impugned order of penalty is cancelled. 3.3 Further reliance is placed in the case of Sunil Kumar Goel (supra) where Hon'ble High Court deleted the penalty by following observations:- ''The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording its conclusion that a 'reasonable cause' had been shown by the respondent-assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business. The financial affairs and cases of exigency are handled by her husband including the payment of wages to labourers and lenders. The exigencies of genuine transactions entered into between the sister concerns cannot be held to be a device for tax evasion. It is not disputed that both the assessees are assessed to tax and impugned transactions are reflected in their books and genuineness of the same has not been challenged. In these facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncement, the imposition of penalty u/s 271D is unjustified. 3.5 The ld. DR Shri D.C. Sharma supported the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) and contends that the assessee's statement has not been found to be correct in the facts and circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
