What is PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. authority for?

The genuineness of a transaction does not constitute a reasonable cause for the non-levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

How many judgments cite PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (283 ITR 329), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 273B, Section 143(3), Section 271E, Section 80P.

PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (283 ITR 329)

Panamaram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Panamaram, Wayanad vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 433/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…transactions of acceptance of loans or deposits in cash as genuine and bonafide, the penalty cannot be levied u/s.271D of the Act, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad.). This contention was rejected by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of NSS Karayogam v CIT (2020) 271 Taxman 193 (Kerala), wherein it was held that mere genuineness of transaction does not constitute a reasonable cause as contemplated u/s.271D of the Act for non-levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgme…

Panamaram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Panamaram vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…transactions of acceptance of loans or deposits in cash as genuine and bonafide, the penalty cannot be levied u/s.271D of the Act, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad.). This contention was rejected by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of NSS Karayogam v CIT (2020) 271 Taxman 193 (Kerala), wherein it was held that mere genuineness of transaction does not constitute a reasonable cause as contemplated u/s.271D of the Act for non-levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgme…

M/S. the Thirunelly Co-Operative Bankltd., Wayanad vs. JCIT Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 420/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 80P

…transactions of acceptance of loans or deposits in cash as genuine and bonafide, the penalty cannot be levied u/s.271D of the Act, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad.). This contention was rejected by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of NSS Karayogam v CIT (2020) 271 Taxman 193 (Kerala), wherein it was held that mere genuineness of transaction does not constitute a reasonable cause as contemplated u/s.271D of the Act for non-levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgme…

M/S the Panniyankara Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Kozhikode

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

ITA 910/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 275(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ess. Since the 6 ITA No.910/Coch/2022. The Panniyankara SCB Limited. transactions are genuine and bonafide, levy of penalty is not justified in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad.). It is further submitted that there is no intention on the part of the appellant to evade the tax thereby causing loss to the Revenue, inasmuch as, the transactions are genuine and bonafide and the acceptance of deposits in cash by the appellant co-operative society from the members does not fall within the purview of sec.269SS of the Act,…

The Nadapuram Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Kozhikode vs. JCIT, Range 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 957/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

…, since the appellant was engaged in the banking business. Since the transactions are genuine and bonafide, levy of penalty is not justified in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad.). It is further submitted that there is no intention on the part of the appellant to evade the tax thereby causing loss to the Revenue, inasmuch as, the transactions are genuine and bonafide and the acceptance of deposits in cash by the appellant co-operative society from the members does not fall within the purview of sec.269SS of the Act,…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…or making excise duty payments. For the aforesaid reasons, we cancel the penalty and allow the appeal. The penalty, if any, already collected is directed to be refunded". The Honourable Madras High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co. (283 ITR 329) and CIT Vs. Ratna Agencies (284 ITR 609) has held that if the Appellate Tribunal was satisfied that the transactions were genuine and bona fide, penalty could not be imposed under section 271D of the Act, particularly when the amounts were found reflected in the books of account of respective parties/creditors and hence, there was no evasion of…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…or making excise duty payments. For the aforesaid reasons, we cancel the penalty and allow the appeal. The penalty, if any, already collected is directed to be refunded". The Honourable Madras High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co. (283 ITR 329) and CIT Vs. Ratna Agencies (284 ITR 609) has held that if the Appellate Tribunal was satisfied that the transactions were genuine and bona fide, penalty could not be imposed under section 271D of the Act, particularly when the amounts were found reflected in the books of account of respective parties/creditors and hence, there was no evasion of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Amravati vs. Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate, Daryapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

…case is covered by section 273B of I.T. Act 1961. 8.2 The contentions of the appellant as regard to reasonable cause is supported by the following decisions relied upon by the appellant: 1) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs.-Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co. [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Madras High Court) "The tribunal concurrently found that there were no banking facility within the jurisdiction of assessee's business place. It was also observed that the impugned transactions were genuine and bona fide. Therefore there was reasonable cause for contravention of Sec. 269SS. Penalty under Section 271D/271E rightly deleted". 2) Co…

Rajkumar S Agarwal, Mumbai vs. JCIT-20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4251/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 4251/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shri Rajkumar S Agarwal The Jt. Commissioner Of 209, Raiker Chamber, Bks Devsai Income Tax Marg, Govandi East, Mumbai फनाभ/ Circle-20(3) 4T H 411, Floor, Piramal Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aidpa3783B अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V, DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

…and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty. 11. Referring to the decision reported in [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Mad) (CIT V. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.), this Court in the decision reported in [2008] 303 itr 99 (Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax V. Lakshmi Trust Company), held as follows: "In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal found on the facts that the transactions were genuine and the identity of…

Auto Fuel Centre, Durgapur vs. J.C.I.T., Circle-1, Durgapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Auto Fuel Centre Vs. Jcit, Circle-1, Dgp C/O. Sn Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seben Brothers” Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S Chinsurah, Dist- Hooghly. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfa8826F (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…that Hon`ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. -VS- Lakshmi Trust Co. [2008] 303 ITR 99 (MAD), held as follows: “We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. This court in CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. [2006] 283 ITR 329 (Mad), following the decision of the apex court in Asst. Director of Inspection (Invst.) v. Kum. A. B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258, held that if there was genuine and bona fide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impo…