9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the on-going construction of the house. Though an affidavit which was filed by the Pratixaben A. Joshi is not on record but statement of ld. AR has been noted that this fact is correct. Clearly, the transaction between a wife and a husband who was staying together under the same roof is eligible for relaxation from the purview of repayment of loan etc. as provided in section 273B of the Act. Ld. Jt. CIT has not given any source of loan from where this so called loan was taken. Therefore, in our considered opinion this is not a fit case, where penalty should be levied - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. Nos.2988 And 2989/Ahd/2014, Cross Objection Nos. 311 And 312/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima-facie this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 in F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 10th December 2015, vide which it has been provided that if the tax effect by virtue of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) s order is below ₹ 10 lacs, then that order would not be challenged before the Tribunal in further appeal. The Board has provided exemptions at clause (8) of the Instructions wherein it has been provided that these instructions will not be applicable, if vires of any provisions has been quashed by impugned order or addition was made on some audit objections or the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts, etc. We find that the present case does not fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i M. Joshi Total Rs.17,40,000/- 2. The Assessing Officer observed that as the repaid loans in cash in aggregate as mentioned above exceeded ₹ 20,000/-, the assessee contravened the provisions of consequences as envisaged under the provisions of section 271E of the Act. Accordingly, the AO referred the case for initiation of penalty u/s.271E of the Act. 3. As the penalty is leviable u/s.271E of the Act, a show-cause notice u/s.271E of the Act was issued to the assessee by the undersigned vide letter No. Joint CIT/KR/Show Cause/271E/AGJ/2012-13 dtd.25.02.2013 asking the assessee to submit his explanation in this regard either personally or through a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.02.2010 As such the repayment of loan was not Deposits and as such the same cannot be hit by the provisions of section 269T. Accordingly there was no case to invoke the provisions of section 271E. 3. So also the payment of ₹ 4,50,000/- made to Pratixaben A. Joshi (wife)was also out of capital of the H.U.F. which has been kept by the Bigger Joint family of Gunvantrai Joshi (Father). These were not the deposits but the payment made by the Joint family in the form of 'Married Woman Property' due to her earlier, and which was a liability of the family pending from Marriage. Considering the above facts circumstances penalty proceedings may be dropped oblige. 5. The contention of the assessee cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, father of the assessee, Shri G. M. Joshi has deposited ₹ 9,60,000/- in bank account no.10424307437. These are the deposits by self which the Jt. CIT has considered as a repayment of a loan by the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the money is a repayment of loan. The Assessing Officer was fully empowered to examine the source of the cash deposits of ₹ 9,60,000/- in the account of the father Mr. Gunvantray M. Joshi but the same will be outside the purview of the penalty for the violation of section 269T of the Act, there is an entry of ₹ 4,50,000/- deposited by the appellant in the AXIS Bank account which is jointly held with Smt. Pratixaben Joshi, the wife of the appellant. It is not clear as to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
