2018 (2) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e by the petitioner for the said year was revised on scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act determining his taxable income at Rs. 19,63,260/- and raising an additional demand for Rs. 2,87,610/- towards tax. The said assessment was without prejudice to the proceedings for imposition of penalties under the Act. It is conceded by the petitioner that he has introduced during the relevant year a sum of Rs. 45,79,790/- received by him from his father and a sum of Rs. 1,92,29,855/- received by him from his mother as capital in his business. Further, it is also conceded by the petitioner that during the very same year, he has also repaid in cash a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- received earlier by him from his mother. The parents of the petitioner have a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ning 15% in two equal monthly instalments. Exts.P7 and P7(a) orders are under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not addressed any argument as regards Ext.P7(a) order granting conditional stay of enforcement of Ext.P2 order. 4. Section 271D of the Act provides that if a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit or a specified sum in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified sum so taken or accepted. Section 273B of the Act provides that notwithstanding any....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in so far as the genuineness of the transactions and the bonafides of the petitioner are not doubted in the order impugned in the appeal, the appellate authority ought not have imposed the aforesaid onerous condition while granting the stay sought for by the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that only impossible situations for compliance of the provision contained in Section 269SS would constitute "reasonable cause" within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be inappropriate for this Court to consider the question as to whether the petitioner has made out a reasonable cause fa....