TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 271Eof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), both dated 23.09.2013. 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee, same assessment year, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The assessee's appeal in ITA No.453/Kol/2016, for A.Y.2010-11, has taken as the lead case. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal (in lead case in ITA No.453/Kol/2016), as follows: 1. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the order of penalty u/s 271D is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anikMazumder-Son of the assessee 2 Undated as evident from loan confirmation 2,25,098 Shri IndranilBanikMazumder--Son of the assessee 3 Undated as evident from loan confirmation 54,928 Sandhya BanikMazumder-Wife of the assessee Total 4,30,026 Therefore, the AO observed that, since the assessee has accepted the loan in cash and paid the loan in cash, therefore, it was a fit case to impose the penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee replied to the Assessing Officer that these loan transactions were mainly between son and father, wife and husband. The assessee submitted that the transactions between son and father and husband a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, between husband and wife and between close relatives. The Section 269SS states that "no Person shall, take or accept from any other person any loans or deposits..............."Therefore, section 269SS and 269T applicable only on commercial transactions, and business transactions. The husband, wife and son are not any other person, as mentioned above in the section 269SS of the Act. The term "any other person" applies tocommercial transactions, and business transactions. In the assessee`s case under consideration the assessee is salaried employee and does not do any business therefore the transactions between him and his son/wife are not commercial/business transactions therefore the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T do not apply.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umder, (son of the assessee) and repaid Rs. 1,50,000/-. Assessee repaid loan to his another son Sri IndranilBanikMazumder at Rs. 2,25,098/- and also repaid loan to his wife Smt. Sandhya banikMazumder at Rs. 54,928/. All these transactions are between husband and wife, and between father and son, being close relative of one family. We also note that assessee is a salaried employee and not a businessman. Therefore, based on the facts narrated above, these transactions do not fall within the ambit of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act and for that we rely of the judgment of coordinate Bench in the case of Anant Himatsingka and Manisha Prakash Amin (supra).To support the family members, the money has been given by the assessee to his son/wife. ....