SHRI DEEPAKBHAI C. PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(5), VADODARA,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2000/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 August 2020AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the impugned loans were genuine and no addition was made under Section 68. Considering the plausibility of the explanation, the Tribunal held that a reasonable cause existed for the contravention.

What were the facts?

The assessee accepted loans in cash aggregating Rs. 90,000 from three individuals for constructing an old house. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS.

What were the issues?

Whether a reasonable cause existed for accepting cash loans in contravention of Section 269SS, thereby warranting deletion of penalty under Section 271D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Anil R. Shah, A.R, Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.D.R

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 31.03.2014 arising in the penalty order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the Assessing [Shri Deepakbhai C. Parikh vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - Officer (AO) under s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2011-12.

2.

The captioned appeal concerns penalty of Rs.90,000/- under s. 271D of the Act for alleged offence committed under s.269SS of the Act.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions on the issue. The AO in the course of the assessment observed that assessee has accepted loans in cash of Rs.90,000/- in aggregate from three persons, namely, Chandrakant T Parikh, Bansibhai T. Parikh & Sandipbhai B.

Parikh Rs.30,000/- each. In defense, it is the case of the assessee that he was building a new house which was quite old and above 50 years of age. In such a situation, he was not in position to avail loans from banking channels for construction and hence availed loans from friends and relative, the details of which were duly furnished. The lenders are retired/Government employees working as Teachers etc. and earning salary income/pension from the Government. It is noticed that in the assessment framed under s.143(3) of the Act, the impugned loans have been accepted as genuine and no addition thereon has been made under s.68 of the Act. The assessee has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in order dated 27/08/2019. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ITA No. 2000/Ahd/18 [Shri Deepakbhai C. Parikh vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - plausibility of explanation, we find that reasonable cause exists for exonerating the assessee from the contravention of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. The penalty imposed amounting to Rs.90,000/- is therefore deleted.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

This Order pronounced on 08/09/2020

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 08/09/2020 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →