Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-13, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 08/07/2014.
At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the Shri Suporno Sil Assessment Year:2011-12 assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:
1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty is perverse, rather against evidence and material on record and without an iota of material or evidence to support and sustain the same.
2. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty imposed u/s 271D amounting to Rs. 8,95,723/- by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-42, Kolkata and confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-13, Kolkata is perverse and ought to be deleted in entirety. 3. For that, the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any Ground at any time before or at the time of hearing. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act,1961 in the case of Sri Sandip Sil, Prop. of Sil Enterprise for the A.Y. 2011-12 it was found by the Assessing Officer that a loan of Rs.8,95,723/- has been received from Sri Sandip Sil by the assessee (Shri Suporno Sil) in cash during the F.Y.2010-11, in contravention of Section 269SS of the I.T.Act,1961, which attracts penalty u/s.271D of the I.T. Act,1961. A show-cause notice dt.17.06.2014 was issued to assessee asking the assessee, (Sri Suporno Sil, Prop. of Sil Builders) to reply with documentary evidence in support of his claim. No reply was received from assessee, therefore, Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271D of the Act to the tune of Rs.8,95,723/-.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
Shri Suporno Sil Assessment Year:2011-12 8. We heard ld. D.R. for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. We note that the assessee is engaged in the business as Trader of Cement under the name and style of M/s Sil Builders. We note that during the financial year: 2010-2011, the assessee has received the impugned amount of Rs.8,95,723/- from his own brother, Mr Sandip Kumar Sil. The said amounts were paid by his brother as Transportation Expenses of cement (in which the assessee deals) and it has been recorded in books of account of both the assesses. From the above facts, it appears to us that the assessee has received Rs.8,95,723/- from his own brother on account of business exigencies. Both, that is, brother and assessee share the same premises for their office. The assessee submitted during the appellate proceedings that only Transportation Expenses of assessee has been paid by his brother which is vivid and crystal clear from the ledger of M/s Sil Enterprise (Prop.: Sandip Kumar Sil) since normally assessee is short of cash and hence has to borrow frequently from his own brother. We note that these are transaction between family members on account of business exigencies for financial support to each other which is covered by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in in the case of Manisha Prakash Amin vs. JCIT order dated 24.05.2011, wherein it has been held that the loans from relatives are in the nature of financial support within the family and this is a reasonable cause falling u/s 273B of the Act. In the instant case the transaction is between two brothers for giving financial support and help which is not a loan or deposit in stricter sense, therefore, we delete the penalty of Rs.8, 95,723/-.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 13.11.2019