9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and the same having been given only as a financial support, the relevant transaction did not fall in the ambit of section 269SS of the Act. In our opinion, the ratio of these decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal is squarely applicable in the present case, where the loans in question were received by the assessee in cash from her daughter and son-in-law and applying the same, we hold that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable. We accordingly cancel the said penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 862/KOL/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2019 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) And Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the course of penalty proceedings, the following explanation was offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer:- Loan of ₹ 2,66,000/- and ₹ 95,000/- were taken from Shri Ajay Kumar jain and Smt. Monika Sitani respectively in cash. Shri Ajay Kumar Jain and Smt. Monika Sitani happed to be the son-in-law and daughter respectively of the assessee. The loans were taken on Sundays to meet urgent business requirement. The lenders have disclosed the loans advanced to the assessee in their respective returns of income. Reliance was placed on the following decisions, while claiming that penalty u/s 271D of the Act sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find no force in the arguments made by the Ld. A/R to modify the order of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. A/R, during the course of appellate proceedings, has merely reiterated what has already been stated before the lower authorities and has been disposed off via speaking order. There is no fresh compelling argument or material justifying modifying of the order of the JCIT. As to the case laws relied by the appellant, the same pertain to the genuineness of the transaction based on the facts of those cases being a reason in using discretion of the authority levying penalty in favour of the assessee. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the case laws cited by the appellant in as much as that Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Manisha Prakash Amin vs.- JCIT vide its order dated 24.05.2011 passed in ITA No. 1839/KOL/2010, wherein it was held that the transactions between relatives involving receipt of loan in cash are not in the nature of loans or deposits as envisaged in section 269SS of the Act and the penalty imposed under section 271D was accordingly cancelled by the Tribunal. A similar issue was again decided by the Tribunal in the case of Anant Himatsingka vs.- Addl. CIT (ITA Nos. 331 332/KOL/2010) dated 25.11.2011) cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, wherein it was held that the loan transaction between son-in law and father-in-law for giving a support and help was not a loan or deposit in stricter sense of section 269SS of the Act and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
