CIT v. Balaji Traders

303 ITR 312High Court2008#9659 most cited

What is CIT v. Balaji Traders authority for?

Penalty under sections 271D and 271E may not be levied if there was a reasonable or unavoidable cause for violating sections 269SS and 269T.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Balaji Traders · 303 ITR 312 · section 271D · section 271E · section 269SS · section 269T · reasonable cause · penalty for cash transactions · bona fide reason

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 269SSSection 271DSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269ssection 271epenalty under section 271dsection 269sssection 273section 271dsection 269section 273bmiscellaneous applicationlevy of penaltysection 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Balaji Traders

Sri Sankaranarayanan Krishnamoorthy, Chennai vs. ITO-1(2) International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 271D

…f Rs.27 lakhs received from the purchase of his agricultural property. Therefore, assessee asserted that there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty by relying on the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Balaji trader reported in 303 ITR 312. However, the Addl.CIT was of the opinion that assessee couldn’t make out a case that there was a reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty and he imposed a penalty of Rs.27 lakhs u/s.271D of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the same. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal…

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…eaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (Supreme Court) (supra). We also took into consideration the following case laws wherein imposition of penalty was not justified. (i) CIT V/s Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312(Madras) and the CIT V/s Ratna Agencies (Madras 284 ITR 609). The ratio of their decisions applies in the case of assessee. Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS - Assessment year 1993-94 - Assessing Officer found that assessee had availed cash borrowings exceeding Rs. 20,000 for about 36 tim…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…fore us. Therefore, no penalty is leviable against the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that t…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1748/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…fore us. Therefore, no penalty is leviable against the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that t…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…nd tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held that it was not aimed at avoiding any tax liability. The genuineness of the transaction was accepted. In the case of CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad) it has been held that deletion of penalty was justified in a case where:- (i) creditors are genuine and transactions not doubted (ii) there is no revenue loss to the exchequer, and (in) there is business exigency forcing the assessee to take cash loan. In the case of Omee Engineers Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, it was held that where there i…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…nd tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held that it was not aimed at avoiding any tax liability. The genuineness of the transaction was accepted. In the case of CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad) it has been held that deletion of penalty was justified in a case where:- (i) creditors are genuine and transactions not doubted (ii) there is no revenue loss to the exchequer, and (in) there is business exigency forcing the assessee to take cash loan. In the case of Omee Engineers Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, it was held that where there i…

M/S Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd.( Now Lok Vikas Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Addl.CIT Range-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…y substantial question of law arises for determination of the Court in the present appeal. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. CIT Vs. Balaji Traders (2008) 303 ITR 312 (Mad) (HC) (Case Laws Compilation PB 26-29) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 10 to 13 of the order held as under:- 10. This Court in CIT vs. Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co. (supra), following the decision of apex Court in Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 513 : (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC), held that i…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…• Lodha Builders Pvt Ltd v. ACIT reported in [2014] 034 ITR (Trib) 0157 • DCIT v. Chetan M Kakaria reported in [2014] 032 ITR (Trib) 0024 • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Addl. CIT reported in [2010] 001 ITR (Trib) 0165 • CIT v. Balaji Traders reported in 303 ITR 312 (Mad) • OMEC Engineers v. CIT reported in 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) • CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., reported in 285 ITR 221 (Mad) • Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A B Shanthi reported in [2002] 255 ITR 0258 (SC) 18. The Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause and therefore pursuant to section 273B of the Act no penalty can…

Sri Hiranmoy Gon, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjit Goswami, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273B

…tvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (303 ITR 5 Gujrat) it has also been held that since there was reasonable cause and the "Transactions" were with the Family Members, the Penalty could not be levied U/s 271D of the Income Tax Act. (iii) In C.I.T. vs Balaji Traders (303 ITR 312 Madras) it has been held that if there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty. (iv) In Dr. Rajaram L. Akhani vs Income Tax Officer (395 ITR 497 Gujrat…

Shyamili Bera, Purba Medinipur vs. JCIT, Range- Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1797/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 3

…1 Shyamali Bera, AY 2005-06 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shyamali Bera Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: ADCPB8825H) Range-Haldia Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 12.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2018 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, FCA & Shri Gautam Ghosh, Advocate For the Assessee/Cross Objector Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR O…

Shri Manoj Bhawarlal Dhoot, Bagalkot vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vijapura Range, Vijapura

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

ITA 232/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gokul L. Malpani, C AFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel, Addl.CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

…ral law. It is only under Income Tax Act that for assessing income, both are treated as 5 differently but in general law both are treated as one entity. In support of his contention, he relied on plethora of decisions as follows : 1. CIT Vs. Balaji Traders 303 ITR 312 (Mad) 2. Chandra Cement Ltd. Vs. DCIT 68 TTJ 35. 3. CIT Vs. Bhagwati Praad Bajoria – HUF 263 ITR 487 4. CIT Vs. Natvarlal Purshottama Parekh 303 ITR 5 (Guj) 5. Vir Sales Corporation Vs. ACIT 50 TTJ 130 (Ahd) 6. CIT Vs. Manoj Lalwani 269 ITR 590 (Jai) 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of…