9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to settle the loan account by paying an amount of ₹ 6,11,000/- on 12-06-2012 before the Co-operative Court. The assessee has also placed on record the translated copies of the Resolution dated 31-03-2006 and 15-08-2005 to substantiate that the assessee had to repay loan to Geeta Sanstha. The assessee has filed affidavits of the lenders who are agriculturist to substantiate that they have advanced cash loan for the purpose of repayment of arrears of loan to Geeta Sanstha on 12-06-2012. The assessee has also placed on record affidavit of Shri Ramchandra Shivaji Jadhav, Manager, Geeta Sanstha giving the detailed sequence of events that transpired on 12-06-2006 in the Co-operative Court. The Revenue has not disputed the outstanding amount payable by assessee to Geeta Sanstha which is duly reflected in audited balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-2007 under the head Loans. The Assessing Officer had summoned the lenders of the cash amount and recorded their statements on 14-10-2009. All the three lenders supported the cause of the assessee. The genuineness of the transactions have been verified. The persons who have advanced cash loans have been identified. They had filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of loan in cash. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), accordingly deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271D as well as 271E of the Act. Now, the Revenue has filed present appeals before the Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department submitted that the assessee had accepted the cash loan from three different persons despite the fact it was having bank account. The assessee has not been able to show that the lenders were not having bank accounts. There was sufficient time for the assessee to deposit the cheque for further repayment of loan. The ld. DR vehemently defending the orders levying penalty submitted, that the assessee has not been able to show reasonable cause for accepting and repaying the loan amount in cash. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 274 ITR 53 (P H). ii. Kasi Consultant Corporation Vs. DCIT, 311 ITR 419 (Mad). iii. P. Baskar Vs. CIT, 340 ITR 560 (Mad). iv. ITO Vs. Sunil M. Kasliwal, 94 ITD 281 (Pune)(TM). v. Balaji Traders Vs. DCIT, 78 ITD 368 (Pune). 4. On the other hand Shri Pramod Shin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.1,50,000/- Total Rs.7,68,000/- On 12-06-2006 the amount of ₹ 6,11,000/- was withdrawn and was taken to the Co-operative Court, Solapur. In Court the representatives of the Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank claimed that they are entitled to receive the amount on behalf of Geeta Sanstha. The officials of the Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank claimed that the Bank had lended money to Geeta Sanstha and recovery proceedings against Geeta Sanstha are pending before the same Court. Therefore, they have the lien on the said amount. Since, the assessee had no instructions from Geeta Sanstha to repay the amount to Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank, the assessee was advised by Counsel not to make the payment at that point of time in the Court. As a consequence of events that occurred in Court, the lenders insisted the assessee to repay the money on the same day itself. Accordingly, the amount withdrawn from the bank was repaid to the lenders on the same date. 5. The ld. Counsel submitted that the lenders had filed an affidavit before the authorities below admitting the payment of amount in cash. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Sanstha which is duly reflected in audited balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-2007 under the head Loans. The Assessing Officer had summoned the lenders of the cash amount and recorded their statements on 14-10-2009. All the three lenders supported the cause of the assessee. The genuineness of the transactions have been verified. The persons who have advanced cash loans have been identified. They had filed affidavits and their statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the contents of the statements or the affidavits. The circumstances under which cash loan was accepted and repaid have been explained. We are of the considered view that the cash transactions were genuine and bonafide. 8. The ld. DR in support of his submissions has placed reliance on certain decisions. After examining the same, we are of the considered view that the decisions cited by the ld. DR do not support the case of Revenue. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (supra) the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the question framed by the appellant (Department) with respect to deleting of penalty imposed u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
