9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in law and if Niece is part of family member then Nephew should also be part of family member. The definition of relatives include husband, wife, brother, sister, sister-in law, Niece and Nephew etc. as per the list given in para 6 of this judgment. The transactions between these family members are neither loans nor deposit and purely a family system and purely a family requirement to help each other in the needy hours, for example medical help, education help and expenses to run the family. That is, one member of the family helps to other member in the needy hours, such as during medical treatment, education, marriage or some other family needs. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, we are of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore needs to be modified. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts in sustaining the Penalty of ₹ 4,50,000/- in complete disregard to the ratio laid down in binding judgment of the jurisdictional Hon ble Calcutta High Court as well as Hon ble ITAT, Kolkata; the penalty so sustained needs to be deleted in full. 3.For that the assessee craves leave to add, to modify or withdraw any ground/s of appeal either before or at the time of hearing . 4. The facts apropos the ground are that the return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06 was filed by the assessee on 27.10.2005 declaring total income of ₹ 1,25,660/-. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was engage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such loan repaid was more than ₹ 20,000/-. On going through the loan confirmations filed by the assessee, it was also found that the assessee has accepted the loans totalling to ₹ 5.00 lacs (being ₹ 4,00,000/- + ₹ 45,000/- + ₹ 55,000/-) in cash from the loan parties during the financial year under consideration and it was evident that the amount of such loan acceptance was more than ₹ 20,000/-. Moreover, the fact of the acceptance and repayment of such loans was never brought to notice of the Department in any earlier stage of assessment. Thus, in the case of the assessee there was a violation of both the sections, that is, section 269SS and Section 269T of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessing office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2012) wherein it was held that transactions between family relatives are not covered by the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that judgments relied by the assessee relate to a transaction between siblings in an explicit manner. It cannot be stretched and cannot become one free of any boundary so as to encompass every relatives like sister-in-law and nephew who are actually members of different family units or even distant relations. Other than very close relatives like parents, siblings or spouse, it cannot be expected in any situation to deposit cash with a person technically not part of family . As family members are not defined anywhere, somewhere there has to be a boundary in deciding who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Bench that against said judgment of the Kolkata ITAT in the case Mansur Ali Laskar( supra), the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Hon`ble Kolkata High Court,vide ITAT No.111/2012 GA No. 1498/2012, and the Hon`ble Court had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the judgment of Hon`ble ITAT Kolkata. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we note that Coordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
