9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The same were settled on 31.03.2008. When Shri Natesan could wait for one whole year, i.e., from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, it is not palatable that he would not have waited for another 3 to 4 days, if the assessee had to repay the amount by cheque. It could be clearly established that no such emergency/urgency existed for the assessee to take loan in cash. Since the assessee having failed to establish such material evidence to show that there was urgency for the assessee to avail of loan in cash, the amount taken from the relatives clearly fall under the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and definitely would not come under the exception clause of section 271D. It is not the case of the assessee that the assessee was under bankrupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and duly served on the assessee on 24.07.2015. Since the assessee failed to substantiate urgent necessity to take loan in cash from the relatives, the Assessing Officer has observed that the case of the assessee would fall under the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and would not come under exception clause of section 271D of the Act and hence, penalty of ₹.3,00,000/- has been levied. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the written submissions filed by the assessee as well as facts of the case and following case law, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By rei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Once the sale of the property was not materialized, for what reason Shri Natesan has given another advance of ₹.2,00,000/- on 31.12.2007. The assessee has not come with any detail of receipt of the above advances from Shri Natesan. By no stretch of imagination, no one can believe that anybody can take loan of ₹.1,00,000/- to repay ₹.50,000/- and so on. If at all to believe the contentions of the assessee, what the assessee did with those advances of ₹.50,000/- + 2,00,000/- stated to have received from Shri Natesan so that the assessee was put to take loan for repayment of the above amount. As rightly noticed by the authorities below, the assessee has no pressure from Shri Natesan to get back the money. The first adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on by the assessee has no application to the facts of the present case because in that case the transaction was between father-in-law and daughter-in-law and the genuineness of the transaction was not disputed, in which, the amount has been paid directly by the father-in-law to the seller for the purchase of house in the name of the assessee and that necessary funds were provided by the assessee s father-in-law as a cash gift and the said cash gift was taken urgently by the assessee to get the purchase deed executed and no loan was taken from her father-in-law. In the present case, we find that there was no such urgent situation or reasonable cause for the assessee to take loan in cash. 6.2 Moreover, the case law relied on by the ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
