Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Burdwan, in appeal no. 518/CIT(A)/ASL/JCIT, Ramge-1/BWN/13-14, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D read with section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 15/03/2013.
2 Shri Plaban Kumar Basu Assessment Year:2010-11 2. Although in this appeal, the assessee has raised a multiple grounds of appeal, but at the time of hearing, the solitary grievance of the assessee has been confined to the issue that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the penalty u/s 271D read with section 269SS of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3.When this appeal was called out for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 27.11.2019, passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in for assessment year 2009-10, whereby the issue of penalty u/s 271D read with Section 269SS of the Act has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present issue is squarely covered by the above said order of the Tribunal, a copy of which is also placed before the Bench.
The ld. D.R for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We see no reason to take any other view of the matter then the view so taken by the division bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 27.11.2019. In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as under: “3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. The assessee has admittedly availed loans in cash from his mother and wife, Smt. Mala Basu and Renuka involving sums of ₹1.20 lakh and 1.30 lakh; respectively. There is further no quarrel that the same exceed the threshold limit of ₹20,000/- u/s 269SS, in the relevant previous year. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that these two sum(s) were in fact gifts from family-members mistakenly shown as loan by the auditor. The Assessing Officer declined the all these pleadings in his penalty order dated 30.06.2014. He held that the assessee’s impugned cash loan transactions exceeding Rs.20,000/- indicated a motive to avoid defection without involving any reasonable cause. He thus imposed the impugned penalty of ₹2.50 lakh u/s. 271D of the Act affirmed in the CIT(A)’s order under challenge. 4. Learned counsel vehemently contends during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on facts in imposing the impugned u/s 271D penalty in respect of two cash loans/ gifts sums in case of mother and wife; respectively. His case accordingly is that the clinching fact of the said two parties turning out as family-members itself forms a reasonable cause for not levying the impugned penalty. The Revenue strongly submits on all
3 Shri Plaban Kumar Basu Assessment Year:2010-11 the lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned penalty. We find no reason to sustain the penalty in issue. The fact remains that the two sum(s) in question of ₹1 lakh and 1.30 lakh have come from assessee’s mother and wife; respectively. Case law (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NatvarlalPurshottamdas Parekh holds that such kind of amount(s); which are mere book entry transactions on behalf of familymembers does not violate the provision of sec. 269SS and 269T. Hon'ble Madras high court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad) also holds that such transactions between sister concerns having common directors in running account also does not attract the impugned penal provision. We take into account all these facts to conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred in penalizing the assessee on account of cash loans availed from his mother and wife in issue. The penalty in question stand deleted accordingly.”
We note that in assessee’s case the transactions are among family members, that is, assessee, wife and mother, to help each other. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271D does not attract. Hence, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case (supra) in forA.Y 2009-10, and there is no change in facts and law and the ld. D.R for the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the above said findings of the Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench we allow grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 26.02.2020