9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... father in law. Once this is the position, the transaction does not fall in the ambit of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, these appeals of the assessee are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue are that search and seizure operation was carried out in GKB group of cases u/s. 132 of the Act on 15.2.2006 and consequent search was also conducted in the case of Shri R. K. Gupta, assessee's father in law. As Shri R. K. Gupta was covered, assessee's cases were also covered u/s. 153A of the Act and consequently assessee was required to file return u/s. 153A of the Act for both the assessment years. The assessee filed his returns of income u/s. 153A of the Act disclosing income at ₹ 85,980/- and ₹ 1,27,110/- for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. Assessments were completed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 accepting the returned income. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeals before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. It is a fact that in Assessment Year 2003-04, the assessee has received cash loan of ₹ 5 lacs in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act from Shri R. K. Gupta, who is father in law of assessee. Similarly, assessee has received a sum of ₹ 2 lacs on 04.04.2003 and ₹ 1 lac on 04.04.2003 received in the name of Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Vinay Gupta but actually this was transacted by Shri R. K. Gupta. This loan was admittedly in cash. It is also an admitted position that these cash loans were accepted by assessee and confirmed upto Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein Tribunal held that assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in the light of the affidavit of one Shri J. B. Shah, the Advocate and the Income-tax practitioner having standing of 33 years as he opined that the assessee would not violate the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act if the assessee receives amounts from the family members and repays to different family members. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has confirmed that this is a reasonable cause even though assuming that there was violation by assessee under sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. Even otherwise similarly, transactions among sister concerns was held to be out of the purview of section 269SS in view of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
