9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - ITA No. 3570/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2020 - Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member, And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate And Sh. Divyanshy Agrawal, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/03/2017 passed by CIT(A)-1 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That the impugned Assessment order passed by the Hon ble Ld CIT(A) is bad in law, wrong on facts and against the Principal of natural justices hence is unsustainable. 2. That the learned Hon ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in sustaining penalty of ₹ 12,00,000/- imposed by the Hon ble Ld CIT(A) under Section 27ID without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and the submissions of the appellant. 3. That No penalty for cash loans exceeding ₹ 20,000 from agriculturists living in village areas when transaction were not doubted as the assessee is also agriculturist. The All these persons were agriculturists and that the genuineness of the transactions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal Singh, Village- Sadarpur, Sector-45, Noida and ₹ 5,00,000/- from Sh. Vipin Kumar, S/o Sh. Mahipal, Village-Gulistanpur, Post- Surajpur, Gautum Budh Nagar. As the assessee has made contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act for accepting loan exceeding ₹ 20,000/- otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft, a letter dated 02.06.2016 stating facts was sent to the Range office by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 30.06.2016 was sent to the assessee. In response, the assessee furnished a detailed reply dated 22.11.2016. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee himself submitted the date wise details on which cash loan received aggregating to ₹ 12,00,000/- from his relatives Sh. Rahul and Sh. Vipin Kumar. The assessee himself has admitted during the assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings that these are cash loans taken from his relatives. In his reply the assessee requested to grant him immunity from the provision of Section 271D on the ground that there was reasonable cause for accepting cash loans because the assessee has taken cash loan from his own relatives and the transaction of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 550/- was paid by the assessee to the government authority. iii) Sale consideration of ₹ 11,32,000/- was paid by the assessee to the seller in cash and for this purposes he took a loan of ₹ 12,00,000/- as under: a) ₹ 7,00,000/- from Shri Rahul (jija) on 18.09.2013. Rahul had given this loan out of the amount received by him as compensation against compulsory acquisition of his land by Noida Authority. The Ld. AR submitted that necessary evidences were produced by the assessee. b) ₹ 5,00,000/- from Shri Vipin Kumar (nephew), son of Mahipal on 09.07.2013. This loan was given by Shri Vipin Kumar out of compensation received by him against acquisition of his land by Noida Authority. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the amount was received by the assessee in cash and therefore, provisions of section 269SS are attracted. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the borrower and the creditor both are agriculturist and therefore, provisions of section 269SS are not attracted. The Ld. AR further submitted that 2nd proviso to section 269SS lays down that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed identity of the creditors by way of producing their PAN, bank statements, Aadhar Nos., their Affidavits and also the Nakal of their Naksha Khata . The Ld. AR further submitted that the seller, being agriculturist had required the assessee to pay the entire consideration in cash. It was only for this reason that the lenders had withdrawn the amount from their bank and paid to the sellers. The assessee also had a reasonable cause for accepting the loan in cash. As per the provisions of section 273B of the Income Tax Act, on reasonable cause being shown, no penalty shall be impossible. The assessee had clearly mentioned that his close relative (brother in law and nephew) had paid the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- directly to the seller of the plot bought by the assessee; necessary fund was provided by the assessee s close relative as a cash loan as agriculturist and the said cash was taken urgently to get the purchase deed executed. Sum received by the assessee was purely for the purpose of property investment with the help of his close relative. Since it was within the family transaction, provisions of section 269SS are not attracted. In case when the assessee had accepted loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
