GNANASELVI UDAYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for receiving cash exceeding ₹20,000 from close relatives due to the urgency of saving her property from auction. Therefore, penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.
What were the facts?
The assessee borrowed cash exceeding ₹20,000 from close relatives to save her property from public auction due to urgent repayment needs. The lower authorities levied penalty for violating Section 269SS.
What were the issues?
Whether there was a reasonable cause for receiving cash exceeding ₹20,000 in violation of Section 269SS, thereby negating the penalty under Section 271D.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, dated issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
Shri J.C. Jacob, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee borrowed loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited for purchase of house property. Since the assessee could not repay the dues, the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The matter reached to the level of auctioning the property. At that time, the assessee had no other way except to borrow funds from close relatives like father, husband, cousin-brother and cousin- sister. Due to urgency, the assessee could not go for financial institutions to borrow money. Therefore, the money was borrowed from close relatives and the same was repaid to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. in order to save the house property from public auction. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, there was reasonable cause for receiving money in cash exceeding `20,000/- within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act.
On the contrary, Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee borrowed `12,00,000/- in cash from 11 individuals. The assessee claimed that they are her The Ld. D.R. further pointed out that the assessee availed loans of `2,50,000/- in the year 1993 for purchase of Tondiarpet property and `4,00,000/- in the year 1994 for purchase of Kattupakkam property from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The assessee willfully failed to repay the amount along with interest even after 13 years. Therefore, the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. resorted to recovery proceedings. Consequently, the property was brought to sale.
According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee had enough time to anticipate the LIC recovery proceedings, before the property was brought to sale. Therefore, the assessee could have arranged funds through banking channels. However, the assessee chose to receive money in cash exceeding `20,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly levied penalty under Section 271D of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had borrowed loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and purchased house property. The assessee also committed default in payment of instalments. Consequently, the property was brought to assessee could not repay the amount for 13 years, therefore, the assessee could have made arrangement to save the property by receiving money through banking channel. No doubt, the assessee could have received through banking channel provided there was enough time gap available. In this case, the assessee had to save her property from public auction. The public auction could have been proceeded had the money had not been paid immediately.
When a person is at distress, he has to collect money only from close relatives. For going to the banking institutions or third parties to borrow money, the assessee has to give security and undergo other procedural formalities which would take considerable time.
However, the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. may not wait for the assessee to raise money by going to the financial institutions.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee was compelled to take money from close relatives in cash exceeding `20,000/- in order to save the property from public auction. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee had reasonable cause in receiving the money by cash exceeding `20,000/-. Hence, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Accordingly, the
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 22nd May, 2015 at Chennai.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
