9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the addition of ₹ 13,15,000/- by invoking section 273B of the Income-tax Act in order to give immunity to the assessee from the penalty u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS. 3 After considering the rival submissions we find that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of distribution of products from Haldi ram, Nestle, Parley and Wrigley on agency basis. The assessee had bank limit of ₹ 30 lakhs and had accepted the cash deposit amounting to ₹ 13,15,000/- from his son Shri Rajesh Anand. The Assessing Officer was of the view that this was in contravention to Section 269SS. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued why penalty should not be levied u/s 271D of the Act. In response it was mainly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had reasonable cause to accept the cash deposit. 6 On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that from 22.2.2008 to 3.3.2008 the assessee and his son were out of station. During that period certain cheques were presented by the supplier of goods who are given cheques in advance. Accounts of both the firms were being looked after by assessee s daughter-in-law. She noticed that there was cash available in the firm of assessee s son and therefore, that cash was deposited in the bank. The funds were required urgently otherwise the cheques could have got bounced. He further pleaded that a survey was conducted on the premise of the assessee on 4.3.2008 and cash was found short amounting to ₹ 13 lakhs and in repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee from his son Shri Rajesh Anand. The explanation of the assessee was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer while calculating the cash position during the course of survey action at the assessee s premises. The submissions made by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings were also made at length before the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not commented on the merit of the same while passing the order u/s 271D of the Act. There are also found two clerical errors in the Assessing Officer s order on page 1 where in the dates of cash deposits have been mentioned as 28.5.2008 and 29.9.2008 instead of the actual dates of 28.2.2008 and 29.2.2008. 4.1 A perusal of the relevant bank account (No. 0000005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived for a temporary period to tide over the situational crisis also stands clearly established from the fact that the entire loan was promptly repaid by the assessee through an account payee cheque. 4.2 Section 273B of the Act envisages a non-obstante clause as against section 271D. In the exceptional situation envisaged in Section 273B of the Act, it is permissible for an assessee to substantiate reasonable cause for his failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. On the factual matrix of the case, the appellant has successfully discharged the aforesaid obligation by showing the business exigency combined with a bonafide belief on non-applicability of section 269SS to the transactions between the father and the son. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od 22.2.2008 to 25.2.2008 as an example are being extracted below: 22.2.08 22.2.208 Cheque deposit - 822 From 551138487 84/822 35,000 -28,64,885.71 22.2.08 22.2.08 Cash Deposit 1,25,000 -27,39,885.71 22.2.08 22.2.08 Credit by CLG 1,18,116 -26,21,769.71 22.2.08 22.2.08 Credit by CLG 43,173. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 332763 2,21,752.08 -30,53,424.79 25.2.08 25.2.08 Credit by CLG 36,500 -30,16,924.79 25.2.08 25.2.08 Credit by CLG 24,000 -29.92,924.79 The above clearly shows that for example cash of ₹ 1,25,000/- was deposited on 22.2.2008 and ₹ 4 lakhs was deposited on 23.2.2008. The same is the situation in the latter dates. If this cash was not deposited cheques which were cleared on 23.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
