TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), both dated 28.06.2012. 2. Since, these two appeals relate to the same assessee, same Assessment Year and 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.552/Kol.2015, for A.Y.2005-06, is taken as the lead case. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee( in lead case in ITA No.552/Kol/2015) are as follows: "1. For that the order of ld. CIT(A), Asansol is bad in law as well as in facts and therefore needs to be modified. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 143(3)/254 of the Act, as per the direction given by the Hon`ble ITAT and while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that loan confirmation of the parties from whom short term loan was taken by the assessee for repayment of loan of Rs. 11,00,000/- lacs to the Raniganj Co-operative Bank. Ongoing through the loan confirmations filed by the assessee, it was found that the assessee has repaid the loans totalling to Rs. 5.00 lacs (being Rs. 4,00,000/- + Rs. 45,000/- + Rs. 55,000/-) in cash to the loan parties during the financial year under consideration and it was evident that the amount of such loan repaid was more than Rs. 20,000/-. On going through the loan confirmations filed by the assessee, it was also fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00) and sister-in-law (Rs. 4,00,000/-) as compared to the amount noted by the Ld JCIT, as noted in table above. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee stated before the CIT(A) that his case was covered by decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata inthe case of Mansur Ali Khan (ITAT No. 111 of 2012 GA No. 1498 of 2012) wherein it was held that transactions between family relatives are not covered by the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that judgments relied by the assessee relate to a transaction between siblings in an explicit manner. It cannot be stretched and cannot become one free of any boundary so as to encompass every relatives like sister-in-law and nephew who are actually ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e`s Sister and Counsin sister are considered as family members then why not sister -in- law and Nephew. That is, as per the Chart given above, sister -in- law and Nephew should also be part of family members, and penalty under section 271D and 271E should not be levied. The ld Counsel also submitted before the Bench that against said judgment of the Kolkata ITAT in the case Mansur Ali Laskar( supra), the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Hon`ble Kolkata High Court,vide ITAT No.111/2012 GA No. 1498/2012, and the Hon`ble Court had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and affirmed the judgment of Hon`ble ITAT Kolkata. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y hours, such as during medical treatment, education, marriage or some other family needs. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, we are of the view that transaction between Sister-in -law and Nephew(family members) did not fall in the definition of loan. Therefore, penalty for accepting loan and repaying loan u/s 271D and 271E should not be levied. Therefore, we quash the penalty u/s 271D and 271E for the A.Y 2005-06 in ITA No.552/Kol/2015 and in ITA No.553/Kol/2015. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No.552/Kol/2015 & ITA No.553/Kol/2015) are allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 10.01.2018. ============= Document 1 5 SI Name Addr....