2015 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals allowed for statistical purposes, directing further verification by AO on loan receipt and repayment.

Shri Venkateswara Reddy Kasireddy Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 9 (3) Hyderabad

The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing further verification by the AO on both the receipt and repayment of the ... Penalty u/s 271D - violating the provisions of section 269SS - Held that:- The confirmation letter from the creditor has been produced. The assessee brought out the need for taking loan in cash by giving reason that financial loss would be incurred if the deal had not been concluded immediately and also the flat chosen by him could not be available later. The ld Counsel for the assessee explained as to what constituted reasonable cause and hence prayed for the penalty to be deleted. However, we also notice that there has been a long gap from the time of taking the cash loan i.e. 10.05.2009 and the Registration of the Sale Deed which was only on 5th day of February, 2010.We are of the opinion that the issue needs further verification by the AO as to whether the amount has been received by M/s. Progressive Hotels Ltd (Land owner) or M/s. Choice Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd and call for the production of receipt from the vendors. The AO shall examine the entire issue after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Violation of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271D of the I.T. Act.3. Violation of Section 269T of the I.T. Act.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 271E of the I.T. Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act:The assessee, an individual deriving income from house property and agriculture, received a loan of Rs. 30.00 lakhs in cash from Shri E. Kotaiah on 10.05.2009, violating Section 269SS of the I.T. Act. The assessee argued that the loan was taken on a Sunday, a bank holiday, due to urgent business needs for purchasing an apartment. The Add. CIT, however, held that the assessee could have waited for a banking day to obtain the loan by cheque or draft, thus not accepting the assessee's claim of reasonable cause.2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271D of the I.T. Act:The Add. CIT levied a penalty of Rs. 30.00 lakhs under Section 271D, reasoning that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the cash loan. The assessee's appeal argued that the urgency of the situation and the financial gain from immediate payment constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted the long gap between the loan date and the sale deed registration, suggesting further verification by the AO regarding the payment to M/s. Progressive Hotels Ltd or M/s. Choice Infrastructure Projects Pvt Ltd.3. Violation of Section 269T of the I.T. Act:The assessee repaid Rs. 10.00 lakhs of the loan in cash on 09.08.2009 and Rs. 20.00 lakhs by cheque on 20.02.2010, violating Section 269T of the I.T. Act. The Add. CIT imposed a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs under Section 271E for the cash repayment. The assessee contended that the repayment was made on a Sunday due to the lender's urgent need for funds, which constituted a reasonable cause.4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271E of the I.T. Act:The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to prove the urgency and reasonable cause for the cash repayment. The Tribunal, however, granted the assessee another opportunity to present his case, directing the AO to verify the repayment details and decide the issue in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing further verification by the AO on both the receipt and repayment of the loan. The AO is to examine the entire issue after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and make a decision in accordance with the law.