2017 (5) TMI 1652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment under section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 30.03.3015. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has received loans from certain creditors in cash, amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 271D r.w.s. 274 of the Act and duly served on the assessee on 24.07.2015. Since the assessee failed to substantiate urgent necessity to take loan in cash from the relatives, the Assessing Officer has observed that the case of the assessee would fall under the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and would not come under exception clause of section 271D of the Act and hence, penalty of Rs..3,00,000/- has been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kanchana Bai. The above reply offered by the assessee was not accepted by the authorities below. 6. From the above reply, it is clear that first of all the assessee has not given any reason for not materializing the sale of property for which she has received advance of Rs..50,000/- from Shri Natesan on 01.04.2007. Once the sale of the property was not materialized, for what reason Shri Natesan has given another advance of Rs..2,00,000/- on 31.12.2007. The assessee has not come with any detail of receipt of the above advances from Shri Natesan. By no stretch of imagination, no one can believe that anybody can take loan of Rs..1,00,000/- to repay Rs..50,000/- and so on. If at all to believe the contentions of the assessee, what the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00,000/-, was not at all explained by the assessee either before the Addl. CIT during the course of penalty proceedings or before the ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings or even before the Tribunal. 6.1 The decision in the case of CIT v. Smt. M. Yesodha [2013] 351 ITR 265 (Mad) as relied on by the assessee has no application to the facts of the present case because in that case the transaction was between father-in-law and daughter-in-law and the genuineness of the transaction was not disputed, in which, the amount has been paid directly by the father-in-law to the seller for the purchase of house in the name of the assessee and that necessary funds were provided by the assessee's father-in-law as a cash gift and the said cash gi....