RAJESH GALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee not complying with Section 269SS of the Act due to the financial hardship faced by the group. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee availed cash loans from a related party, M/s. Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd., where he is a director. The group concerns were facing financial hardship and had stopped receiving supplies, leading the assessee to take cash loans to manage daily affairs.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalties imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act were justified, considering the financial hardship and reasonable cause for availing cash loans.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM)
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
These assessee’s three appeals 1156 and 1154/Mum/2024, for assessment years 2017-18, 1015-16 and 2014-15 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s common DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/250/2023-24/1059664578(1) dated 12.01.2024 in penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income Tax Act in short “the Act”.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance canvassed herein challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action imposing 271D
2 Rajesh Gala penalty (ies) of Rs. 2 lakhs, Rs. 8,30,000/- and Rs. 77,80,000/-; assessment year-wise, respectively.
We deem it appropriate to observe herein that the assessee had indeed availed cash loan(s) from the related party M/s. Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd., wherein he is a director. Learned DR vehemently supported both the lower authorities action that the above varying cash loans have violated corresponding statutory provision i.e. section 269SS of the Act thereby making it a fit case to impose the consequential section 271D penalty.
4. We find no reason to express our agreement with learned DR’s foregoing vehement contentions. A combined perusal of these case files reveals that the assessee had indeed submitted during the course of penalty proceedings itself that the above entity M/s. Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. and group concerns had been undergoing turbulent times and its sundry creditors had stopped supplying the corresponding raw material in regular business activities. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that this made M/s. Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd., to deposit its cash sales in the bank account so as to avoid adjustment(s) thereof against various outstanding dues. Learned counsel submits that all these developments only formed the main reason for the assessee to manage day-to-day affairs of Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. by taking cash loans , which have resulted in levy of penalty(ies) forming subject matter of adjudication in the three assessment years before us.
We find merit in the assessee’s arguments challenging the impugned section 271D penalties as neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned Commissioner herein could rebut foregoing factual averments indicating reasons of assessee have availed cash entries/loan from Pramanik Retail Pvt. Limited. Even the “lead” penalty order dated 27.06.2019 herein for A.Y. 2014-15 is fair enough in para 2 that M/s. Pramanik group had indeed overdrawn from its account in the corresponding time period. These clinching
3 Rajesh Gala facts duly support the assessee’s foregoing plea of financial hardship faced by group concerns wherein he is a director (supra). We accordingly quote section 273B of the Act to conclude that there was a “reasonable” cause for the assessee for not having complied with the rigor of section 269SS of the Act in availing the impugned cash loans herein. We accordingly treat it is a fit case to delete the impugned section 271D consequently penalty (ies) in all these three assessment years. The assessee’s identical sole substantive ground herein succeeds in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s three appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.
More judgments on Section 271D
- 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
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
