TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scribed as follows : ITA No. 359/Bang/2008 The assessee is a HUF and assessed to tax from the asst. yr. 1995-96 onwards. Shri D. Sudhakar, who is the Karta of HUF had deposited Rs. 16 lakhs in his wife's name, Smt. Harshini in the form of fixed deposits. But the deposits were shown as the asset of HUF by crediting to D. Sudhakar's (Indl.) account in the books of HUF. During the impugned assessment year, funds were available in HUF. Shri D. Sudhakar (Indl.) was in dare necessity for Rs. 16 lakhs, as he had to advance money to purchase lands in Bangalore. As the fund was available with Shri D. Sudhakar (HUF) , the credit balance of Shri D. Sudhakar (Indl.) to the extent of Rs. 16,00,000 was repaid. During the course of assessment proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through it and that the assessee had to make the payment to Shri D. Sudhakar (Indl.) for an urgent necessity was also turned down by the learned Jt. CIT.ITA No. 360/Bang/2008 The assessee herein is a member of the D. Sudhakar (HUF), of which Shri D. Sudhakar, the husband of the assessee is the Karta. During the financial year 1999-2000, the HUF had spent Rs. 6 lakhs for the assessee. So, the assessee, towards the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs payable to the HUF, paid Rs. 3 lakhs in cash to Shri D. Sudhakar (HUF) during the impugned assessment order (sicyear), which Shri D. Sudhakar (HUF) transferred to Shri D. Sudhakar (Indl.) for acquiring from some properties in Bangalore. The Jt. CIT has noticed that the assessee Shri D. Sudhakar (HUF) for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Shri D. Sudhakar (ITA 359/Bang/2008), the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the party making the repayment i.e., Shri D. Sudhakar (HUF) and the party receiving the payment Shri D. Sudhakar (Indl.) are two independent entities as far as the provisions of IT Act are concerned. The argument of the assessee that the HUF in question was not having a bank account was also seriously challenged by the learned Departmental Representative with the contention that the assessee has been filing returns of income for more than 10 years and is aware of the rules as per the IT Act. The learned Departmental Representative contended that the avoidance of transaction through banking channel by the assessee could be for some other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1E of the Act. The same view has been held by the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Industrial Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Hyd) 373 and Vir Sales Corporation vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130. The decision of Madras Bench of the Tribunal in Dy. CIT vs. Vignesh Flat Housing Promoters (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 848 was also referred to support the assessee's case that where the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt, venial breach of the provisions of law is not a matter for rigors of penalty. We have considered the matter in detail. It is admitted that the assessee has been filing returns of income for the last 10 years. It is seen from the assessment order that a negligible amount of Rs. 10,744 was added to ....