TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of Section 271D of I.T. Act, 1961. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 2,83,500/- under the provisions of Section 271D of I.T. Act, 1961.'' 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, it is observed that assessment in the case of Shri Gulab Rai Ramchandani was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 18-03-2013 for the assessment year 2011-12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ITO, Ward- 2, Beawar observed that the assessee had accepted the loans in cash of Rs. 2,83,500/-from the following persons which according to him is contravention of provisions of Section 2699SS of the I.T.Act 1961 and thus it attracts the penalty u/s 271....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- ''On going through the above, it is observed that the assessee in his submission has himself admitted the fact that he has accepted the loans from various persons in cash during the year under consideration. The assessee further argued that he was under impression that there is no necessity to accept a loan below the monetary limit of Rs. 20,000/- through a cheque or demand draft. He had no idea that even the aggregate if exceeded Rs. 20,000/- resulted into contravention of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act , 1961. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by accepting a sum of Rs. 2,83,500/- in cash. It is no where relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther, the appellant has argued that he was under bona fide belief that penalty u/s 271D cannot be imposed, if the amount borrowed at a time is less than Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, no penalty should have been levied on the appellant. It has consistently been held by various Courts that the ignorance of law is no excuse for infraction of any law of the land. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that he was not aware of the provisions of Section 269SS, hence, the penalty could not be levied u/s 271D, is also not acceptable. As far as various decisions relied upon by the appellant are concerned, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to show that the facts narrated in these decisions are similar to the facts of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum of equal to the amount of loan or deposit so taken or accepted. Section 273B is an overriding provision. According to the said provision, no penalty shall be imposable on a person or assessee for any failure, inter alia, referred to Section 271D if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The tribunal in its order has found that the genuineness of the deposits made by the assessee's brother Pankaj Sharma was not in doubt by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noticed that explanation given by the assessee that the deposits were obtained by him to satisfy the immediate business requirement but found that this ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tanni 03-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 17-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- Sneh Ramchandani 01-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- Sushil Kumar Ramnani 01-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 02-04-2009 Cash 19,500/- Sangeeta Ramchandani 05-04-2009 Cash 18,000/- - do - 06-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 07-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 10-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 13-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 15-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 25-10-2009 Cash 19,000/- Suresh Ramnani 01-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- - do - 02-04-2009 Cash 19,000/- Total 2,83,500 These loans were taken in the business....