9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawee as per his convenience. It stands established that after deposit of the amount, so borrowed in cash, the cheques issued in favour of the drawee stood cleared. Instead of availing the Cash Credit limit, for which the assessee was required to pay interest, he chose to borrow the amount from his near relation and deposit it in his account. There is nothing illegal or unusual about the same. Hence, findings of fact, cannot be said to be perverse or not borne out from the record. Statement made by the assessee cannot be said to be incorrect, for the authorities below, concurrently found the same to be plausible and correct - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4014 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - Sanjay Karol And P. S. Rana, JJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordance with section 269SS? 2. Whether a wrong statement made by assessee that the cash was required to be deposited in the bank account to avoid bouncing of cheques can be construed as reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act? 4. What is the reasonable cause is a question of fact. In the instant case, the fact finding authorities have found the assessee to have explained the circumstances, under which, being emergent in nature, he had to borrow money in cash. It is also a matter of record that the amount stood repaid within one month and much prior to the date of initiation of the impugned action. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the money so borrowed was unaccounted. 5. The assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicatory authorities. The authorities are required to see as to whether the transaction is free from doubt and/or is genuine. Commercial exigency and prudence is certainly required to be kept in mind. 8. Reliance can be sought on the following decisions to support the view taken by the authorities below: Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); CIT v. Kharaiti Lal and Co., (2004) 270 ITR 445 (P H); CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj); CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co., (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad); CIT v. Indore Plastics P. Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 163(MP); CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad); CIT v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 321 (SC); CIT v. Balaji Traders, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
