9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonable cause. therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the JCIT to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards the stamp duty of house property purchased by her for which she was lacking fund. The submissions made during appellate stage that amount in question is not a loan but a financial help as appellant is not required to pay back the amount is not found to be convincing in the absence of any confirmation from respective donor / payee - there is simple assertion made by the appellant/AR without any evidence in support. As per specific provisions of Act, case of the appellant does not come under the purview of exception clauses mentioned in the provisions appended to section 269SS of the Act, therefore, plea of the assessee that since amounts have been accepted from persons in the blood relation above provisions are not applicable, does not found any merit. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinct and not found to be applicable in the instant case. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant in the instant case has failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause - submissions of the appellant that money was required and provided by her relatives on the date of making payment towards purchase of stamp duty does not found to be of any help since from the circumstances in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Since the assessee had satisfactorily established 'reasonable cause' under section 273B of the Act, he must be deemed to have established sufficient cause for not invoking the penal provisions of sections 271D and 27IE of the Act against him. The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was valid.' Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani reported in 260 ITR 590, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that when the loan in cash has been taken in view of urgent need connected with export, Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Sood vs. Jt. CIT in ITA No.1831/Del/2016, order dated 20.06.2018, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271D of the IT Act holding that when the assessee has taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act is not justified. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) DCIT vs. Banarasi Dass Mittal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oginder Kaur and ₹ 1 lakh from Shri Gurdeep Singh Gujral. The capacity of the loan creditors is not in dispute since the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order has accepted such loan. However, the JCIT levied penalty of ₹ 3,25,000/- u/s 271D on the ground that the assessee has accepted cash loan in violation of the provisions of section 269SS and there was no urgency in accepting such cash loan for which there was no reasonable cause. It is the submission of the ld. counsel that she has accepted cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the cost of stamp duty required for purchase of a property. It is the case of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee was under bona fide belief that there was no breach of any provision of law and there was no intention of the assessee to evade tax. Further, there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee to accept such cash loan since it was required on the day of registration to meet the payment of stamp duty on purchase of the house. 9. I find some force in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the transaction took place between the assessee and her par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
