9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleading of assessee that the cash was required to meet urgent business requirements is also negated by the findings of fact by the AO that the assessee had sufficient funds in its banks accounts on the day it took cash loans from the directors and the days on which the expenses were made were bank working days; so the plea of the assessee that the cash loans were taken to meet the shortage of funds stands negated by this finding of fact by the Assessing Officer which has remained uncontroverted before us. Clearly, therefore, the assessee was unable to establish any reasonable cause for taking cash loans also so as to escape from the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act in view of Section 273B of the Act. All the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee deleting penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act finding reasonable cause adduced by the assessee for accepting cash loans. In the absence of any reasonable cause in the present case, the said case laws are of no assistance to the assessee. In the absence of any case made out by the learned Counsel for the assessee to escape from the rigors of Section 269SS/271D of the Act, we dismiss the appeal of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Shri Kamal Sonwani 5,00,000 15.06.2015 Monday 2 Shri Kamal Sonwani 2,75,000 15.09.2015 Tuesday 3 Shri Kamal Sonwani 2,75,000 15.11.2015 Sunday Unsecured Loan 4 Shri Kamal Sonwani 2,75,000 15.01.2016 Friday Total 13,25,000 4. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee against the levy of penalty were two fold i.e. (i) that the genuineness of the transactions was not doubted and (ii) that the cash was taken for meeting business exigencies of paying salaries to employees. Reliance was placed on the following caselaws in support of the proposition that where the genuineness of loans taken in cash was not doubted and sufficient cause was adduced for so taking the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts (more than the cash loan taken) does not support the argument of Assessee Company. 2. Further, 3 out of 4 days of cash loan transaction were working days for banks (as seen from the table above), and net banking facilities being available round the clock, also does not support the argument of the assessee company that these loans were taken for emergency payments. 6. The learned DR further relied on the order of the learned CIT(A) and also drew our attention to paragraph Nos.5.4 to 5.7 of learned CIT(A) s order as under:- 5.4 In this case, the appellant company received the unsecured loan of Rs.13,25,000/- in cash from one of its directors. The same was repaid in cash on different dates to the said director during the FY 2015-16. The appellant has contended that the appellant company and the director are closely related party and the genuineness of the transaction is also not under dispute. The appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Shree Ambica Flour Mills 6 DTR 169 (Guj). ii) CIT, Faridabad, vs Sunil Kumar Goel (ITA No. 177 178 of 2009 dated 03/03/2009. P H High Court) ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or any specified sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, if, (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or specified sum or the aggregate amount of such loan, deposit and specified sum; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit or specified sum, any loan or deposit or specified sum taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit or specified sum taken or accepted from, or any loan or deposit or specified sum taken or accepted by, (a) the Government; (b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act; (d) any Government company as defined in clause (45) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had sufficient funds in its banks accounts on the day it took cash loans from the directors and the days on which the expenses were made were bank working days; so the plea of the assessee that the cash loans were taken to meet the shortage of funds stands negated by this finding of fact by the Assessing Officer which has remained uncontroverted before us. Clearly, therefore, the assessee was unable to establish any reasonable cause for taking cash loans also so as to escape from the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act in view of Section 273B of the Act. All the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee deleting penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act finding reasonable cause adduced by the assessee for accepting cash loans. In the absence of any reasonable cause in the present case, the said case laws are of no assistance to the assessee. 10. In view of the above, in the absence of any case made out by the learned Counsel for the assessee to escape from the rigors of Section 269SS/271D of the Act, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee and uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
