MOHAMAD TASLIM SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

(Assessment Year:2009-10) Mr. Mohamad Taslim Shaikh 21, Ashiyana, Salim Compound, Chimat Pada Road, Andheri (East), Mumbia – 400 059 Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 15 (2), Mumbai 400 007 Respondent PAN: AWQPS1127C अपीलाथ� क� ओर से /By Appellant : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Nilam Jadav ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent : Shri Randhir Gupta, D.R. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.08.2016 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai, dated 21.09.2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 on following ground:

A.Y. 09-10 [Mr. Mohamad Taslim shaikh vs. Addl. CIT] Page 2

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon. C.I.T.(A)-26, Mumbai erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.10,69,000/- u/s.271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein assessee filed submissions vide letter dated 15.09.2012 and 17.09.2012, but CIT(A) confirmed the penalty in question.

2.2 Same has been opposed before us on behalf of assessee inter alia submitting that transactions were genuine for the purpose of purchasing immovable property. The father of assessee had paid the amount of Rs.10,69,000/- directly to the party from whom the assessee had purchased the property. When all the details on record of the Revenue and it was a transaction between father and son for a reasonable cause then there was no scope of levy of penalty u/s.271D of the act. He placed reliance on certain case laws and submitted that in this background, penalty in question be deleted. On the other hand, A.Y. 09-10 [Mr. Mohamad Taslim shaikh vs. Addl. CIT] Page 3 ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of authorities below.

2.3 After going through rival submissions and perused the material on record, we find that similar addition was deleted by ITAT, Ahmedabad ‘A’ Bench in case of ITO vs. Dattuprasad Manharlal Dave in wherein on similar issue, Tribunal has granted relief to assessee by observing as under: “2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee. Before the CIT(A), the stand of the assessee has been that his son was applying for Visa for higher studies abroad, hence to get Visa, assessee needed urgent money to show the higher balance in bank account and therefore, he had borrowed the money from close relatives viz, father, brother and wife. In the penalty proceedings, it was submitted that bonafide belief coupled with the genuineness of transactions would constitute reasonable cause within the meaning of provisions of Sec.273B of the Act. Further, a family transaction between two independent assessees based on an act of casualness would establish reasonable cause within the meaning of provision of Sec. 273B of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) having considered all these submissions of assessee, observed that the assessee has not only produced close relatives from whom the assessee has taken loan but also given evidence that the loan was given in cash, which was withdrawn by their own respective account on the same day or one day before; thus, he held that the genuineness of transaction was established and the assessee could also establish the reasonable cause for the same. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalties u/s 271D & 271E of the Act, because the assessee has shown reasonable cause to accept the money from his close relatives like father, brother and wife and payment thereof. Therefore, these reasoned findings of the CIT(A) need no interference from our side. We uphold the same. A.Y. 09-10 [Mr. Mohamad Taslim shaikh vs. Addl. CIT] Page 4

3. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 4th day of August, 2016.