TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Cancels Penalties for Genuine Family Transactions</h1> <h3>Mrs. S. Vasundara Devi and Mr. M. Subramaniam Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Coimbatore.</h3> Mrs. S. Vasundara Devi and Mr. M. Subramaniam Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Coimbatore. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the cash transactions between family members (HUF and individuals) contravene the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act.2. Whether penalties under section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act are justified in the case of genuine and bona fide transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Contravention of Section 269SS and 269T:The appeals were filed by two assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which sustained penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessees, who are members of an HUF, received and repaid cash loans exceeding Rs. 20,000 from/to the HUF, thereby contravening sections 269SS and 269T. The assessees contended that the transactions were merely accommodation transactions with no revenue leakage or tax evasion, and thus, no penalties should be levied. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the penalties, rejecting the argument that the transactions were genuine credits and that there was no reasonable cause for accepting and repaying the loans in cash.2. Justification of Penalties under Section 271D and 271E:The counsel for the assessees relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Smt. M.Yesodha (351 ITR 265), where it was held that no penalty is leviable under section 271D for genuine and bona fide transactions. The assessees argued that the loans were taken for the purchase of property and were genuine transactions between family members, with no intention to evade tax. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders, citing decisions from the Madras High Court.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the transactions were between HUF and individuals, and the HUF had disclosed the sale of property in its return of income. The Tribunal observed that the transactions were genuine, with no unaccounted money introduced into the books of account. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court's decisions in CIT Vs. Lakshmi Trust Co. (303 ITR 99) and M.Yesodha (351 ITR 265), which upheld that penalties should not be levied for genuine transactions where there is no intention to evade tax.The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E. The Tribunal emphasized that the transactions were genuine and bona fide, and the assessees had reasonable cause for accepting the loans. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, and held that the transactions between the family members were genuine and bona fide with no intention to evade tax. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the genuineness and context of transactions before levying penalties.Order Pronouncement:The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th October 2015, allowing all the appeals of the assessees.
TaxTMI 