TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 2,47,310/-. The A.O completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the said return of income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer informed the JCIT that the assessee has taken cash loan of Rs. 1 lakh and 3 lakhs on 01.04.2006 and 30.09.2006 respectively from Smt. Meena Sood for which penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act may be initiated. The JCIT, thereafter, issued show cause notice u/s 271D of the Act to the assessee. The assessee, in its reply, submitted that the transactions were betw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purchased from the pooled resources of family members. It was further argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the pooling of resources was done for a very genuine cause for acquiring properties for personal use and no attempt was made by the assessee to evade any tax. 5. However, the ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments advanced by the assessee and confirmed the penalty so levied by observing as under: "3.4 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the facts of the case. The appellant submits that the penalty proceedings were initiated after a gap of 4 years and 8 months and the initiation of proceedings should be within a reasonable time and if the principle of reasonableness is not followed, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecessary verification of the said cash should have been done in the case of Smt. Meena Sood is also not acceptable because the same has been claimed as cash loan by the appellant and the provisions of Section 269SS are for curbing unaccounted money disguised as cash loan. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 27ID amounting to Rs. 4 Lacs and the same is confirmed. Ground No. l of the appeal is dismissed. 4. As a result the appeal is dismissed." Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly opposed the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty so levied. He submitted that during F.Y. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs and the other property was for office purposes. 7. So far as allegation of the ld. CIT(A) that no explanation was given for keeping cash in house for a long period in spite of the fact that the assessee's wife has a bank account is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no law barring keeping cash of any magnitude in house. The only bar is that cash should be from disclosed sources. Further, cash can be kept at home for numerous reasons. Therefore, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this aspect is not correct. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the penalty so levied is not justified. 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard the rival submissions and we are of the view that the facts of the present case and the facts of the case referred to ITAT Kolkata in the case of Dr.B.G.Panda are identical . The Tribunal in the aforesaid case held as follows :- "Section 269SS is applicable to the deposits or loan. It is true that both in the case of a loan and in the case of a deposit, there is a relationship of debtor or creditor between the party giving money and the party receiving money. In the case of deposit. the delivery of money is usually at the instance of the giver and it is for the benefit of the person who deposits the money and the benefit normally being the earning of interest from the party who customarily accepts deposit. In the case of loan i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he karta/head of the family, it could not be said that the wife could not have any interest of her own in this house being constructed. The transaction was neither loan nor any gift as no 'interest' element was involved and there was no promise to return the amount with or without interest. It was clear that the money given by the wife was a joint venture of the family. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, it could be said that the aforesaid piece of legislation was not applicable in the instant case. By taking the liberal view and applying the golden rule of interpretation, the assessee had a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 27 3B. Therefore. the penalty should be deleted. 7.....