AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transaction between the trust and its managing trustee, who was intimately connected and managing its affairs, did not constitute a loan or deposit attracting Section 269SS. It also found reasonable cause for accepting cash due to urgent business exigencies.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust, received a substantial amount of cash from its managing trustee for construction purposes. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) found this to be a violation of Section 269SS, leading to a penalty under Section 271D.
What were the issues?
Whether cash received by a trust from its managing trustee is a violation of Section 269SS, and if so, whether there was reasonable cause to waive the penalty under Section 271D.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa502 citing83 ITR 26 · 1972 · SC
- Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT82 citing156 ITR 509 · 1985 · SC
- Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.65 citing118 ITR 326 · 1979 · SC
- CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram36 citing106 ITR 292 · 1977 · SC
- CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari28 citing74 ITR 57 · 1969 · SC · Read judgment
- Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT22 citing120 ITR 49 · 1979 · SC
- Mahak Sing v. ITO (ITAT, Del)18 citing127 ITD 1 · 2010 · ITAT
- ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar13 citing220 ITR 232 · 1996 · Read judgment
- Auto Piston Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT11 citing38 Taxmann.com 61 · 2013 · HC
- Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2. Chennai11 citing125 Taxmann.com 266 · 2021 · SC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samora Hotels (P) Ltd.10 citing85 Taxmann.com 254 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory v. Jt. CIT10 citing77 ITD 478 · 2001 · ITAT
- Vasan Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. ACIT9 citing103 Taxmann.com 26 · 2019 · HC
- Farrukhabad Investment (1) Ltd. v. JCIT6 citing85 ITD 230 · 2003 · ITAT
- Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT6 citing73 ITD 252 · 2000 · ITAT
- 225 ITR 4095 citing225 ITR 409
- Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Addl. CIT5 citing41 DTR 305 · 2010
- 1. CIT v. Balaji Traders4 citing68 TTJ 35 · ITAT
- Chandra Cement Ltd. v. Dy. CIT4 citing99 TTJ 212 · ITAT
- CIT V/s Bombay Conductor Electricals (2008) 301 ITR 238 Guj. 2) Omec Engineers v. CIT4 citing80 TTJ 82 · 2003 · ITAT
- Mohan Kaikare v. Dy. CIT4 citing52 ITD 236 · 1995 · ITAT
- Muthoot M. George Brothers v. ACIT4 citing47 TTJ 434 · 1993 · ITAT
- (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526 (Guj) Taxman (sic), CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta3 citing5 Taxmann 11 · 1981 · HC
- 33. In Paras Brass Extrusion Ltd. v. Dy. CIT3 citing3 SOT 554 · ITAT
- 51 TTJ 5993 citing51 TTJ 599 · ITAT
- CIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. & Ors.3 citing200 ITR 505
- CIT v. Idhayam Page 4 of 37 Publications3 citing285 ITR 281
- Co. & Ors. (1953) 24 TTP 405 (SC), 200 ITR 505 (sic), Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Manohar Lai Dudeja3 citing189 ITR 186 · 1991 · HC
- Manohar Lai Dudeja (1991) 189 ITR 186 (All)(FB), Narayandas Kedamath v. CIT3 citing224 ITR 113 · 1997 · HC
- Nandhi Dhall Mills v. CIT3 citing61 Taxmann.com 97 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.12.2021 of the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is against the fact and circumstances of the case and equity.
On the fact and circumstances of the case, under the provision of the law, and under the judicial precedence, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax erred in levying the penalty u/s 271D(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the loan is received from the trustee to t
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Love Shoppers Ltd, Ahmedabad vs DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), AhmedabadRajkot16 May 2023Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samora Hotels (P) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the transaction does not exempt the assessee from penalty under Section 271D. The assessee failed to demonstrate any emergency circumstances necessitating the cash receipt, and s...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Bhrathi Consumer Care Products Pvt Ltd…Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023Allowed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samora Hotels (P) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271D was invalid as the AO failed to record his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court and othe...
- Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs ACIT, Central Circle, KotaJaipur11 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on Auto Piston Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without proper appreciation of facts, as the transaction pertained to the company and not the assessee in his individual capacity. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
- Jice Academy for Excellence Private… vs Income Tax Officer, NFAC, DelhiBangalore19 Sept 2022Allowed
Also relies on Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory v. Jt. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the Executive Directors and the company, who manage its affairs, do not attract Section 269SS. There was a reasonable cause for accepting cash loans, thus the penalty under...
- Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore29 Apr 2022Allowed
Also relies on Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory v. Jt. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the transactions were undertaken for business expediency and involved the director, thus not falling under the purview of Section 269T. It also found reasonable cause for the non-compliance, consid...
More judgments on Section 269SS
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata vs Laser Power & Infra Private Limited, KolkataITA 2926/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
