Tribunal remands case due to procedural errors under Rule 46A, assessee's appeal allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the non-compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 46A regarding additional evidence. The appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to cash loans between family members.
2. Validity of penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS.
3. Compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 regarding additional evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 269SS to Cash Loans between Family Members:
The assessee argued that the cash loan of Rs. 16,75,000/- was taken from her husband for the purchase of a residential property, asserting that transactions between close family members should not attract Section 269SS. The assessee cited various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Kolkata Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to support the claim that genuine transactions between family members for mutual benefit do not fall under the purview of Section 269SS.

2. Validity of Penalty under Section 271D for Violation of Section 269SS:
The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee took a cash loan of Rs. 16,75,000/- from M/s. Industrial Power Solutions, violating Section 269SS. Despite being given opportunities, the assessee did not submit any explanation or evidence before the AO. Consequently, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 16,75,000/- under Section 271D. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the penalty, noting that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for accepting the cash loan, which could have been routed through banking channels. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee did not provide sufficient justification for the cash transaction.

3. Compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 Regarding Additional Evidence:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted additional evidence for the first time before the CIT(A), including the balance sheet and tax audit report of the husband's proprietary concern. However, the CIT(A) did not comply with Rule 46A, which mandates recording reasons for admitting additional evidence and allowing the AO to examine and rebut the evidence. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to call for a remand report from the AO on the additional evidence, leading to an unverified adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) did not adhere to the procedural requirements under Rule 46A when admitting and considering additional evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced on 03/06/2022 at Allahabad, U.P., in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

---