9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is acceptance of loan or deposit in contravention of section 269SS of the Act which lays down that no loan or deposit can be taken in cash, where the loan or deposit is in excess of Rs. 20,000/- or more. 3. The admitted factual position is that the assessee is the wife of Fafiqul Hassan, sole proprietor of 'Techno Industry'. The assessee is also carrying on business under the name and style 'Tuhinara Enterprise'. The assessee's husband wanted to purchase a property in the name of the assessee and he deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee a total sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- on various dates in cash and each deposit was in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The negotiations for purchase of the property did not materialise and therefore mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the aforesaid case held as follows :- "Section 269SS is applicable to the deposits or loan. It is true that both in the case of a loan and in the case of a deposit, there is a relationship of debtor or creditor between the party giving money and the party receiving money. In the case of deposit. the delivery of money is usually at the instance of the giver and it is for the benefit of the person who deposits the money and the benefit normally being the earning of interest from the party who customarily accepts deposit. In the case of loan it is the borrower at whose instance and for whose needs the money is advanced. The borrowing is primarily for the benefit of a borrower although the person who lends the money may also stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise to return the amount with or without interest. It was clear that the money given by the wife was a joint venture of the family. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, it could be said that the aforesaid piece of legislation was not applicable in the instant case. By taking the liberal view and applying the golden rule of interpretation, the assessee had a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 27 3B. Therefore. the penalty should be deleted. 7. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the transaction in the present case was also between husband and wife. As laid down in the aforesaid decision, penalty in the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
