TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in fact in confirming the penalty levied of Rs. 5,21,300/- u/s. 271D of the Act thereby clearly ignoring facts and evidences submitted during course of appellate proceedings." 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had taken loan from his brother (Shri Dineshbhai Dave for Rs. 2,48,300) and his mother (Mrs. Ansuyaben Dave for Rs. 2,73,000) in cash totaling to Rs. 5,21,300/- for the purpose of purchase of residential property. The AO held that that there was contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, and accordingly levied penalty under section 271D of the Act equal to the amount of loan or deposit so taken or accepted in cash. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- was taken from his brother for purchasing property, penalty u/s 271D should not be levied. The exceptions to section 269SS have been mentioned by appellant in all the written submissions furnished by him. However, it is clear from a simple perusal of the written submission that appellant is not covered by the exemptions cited by him. Rule 6DD is very specific regarding the exemption of applicability of section 269SS. Appellant is not covered by any of the exemptions to applicability of section 269SS. 4.3 The appellant has relied on numerous case laws in support of his ground of appeal. However, the specific facts of his case can be clearly distinguished from the facts of the cases cited by him. Taking into consideration the en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Assessing Officer in their respective orders. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perusal the material on record. We note that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhaniv ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 693 (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his son to meet urgent requirement of depositing margin money in bank account for buying a vehicle for personal use, amount so received was neither a loan nor a deposit within meaning of section 269SS. The Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT v Vardaan Fashion [2015] 60 taxmann.com 407 (Delhi - Trib.) held that acceptance of cash by husband from his wife cannot said to be taking of loan or advance in strict sense of section 269SS and therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)where assessee received substantial amount of cash from her husband for purchase of plot and construction of residential house on it, since repayment of said amount was not mandatory and there was no element of interest, and pooling of family funds was done by assessee due to family requirement and as she did not have any known sources of funds, no penalty could be levied under section 271D for violation of section 269SS. In view of the decision of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhani supra and Smt. Meera Devi Kumawat v. JCIT [2021] 132 taxmann.com 21 (Jaipur - Trib.) and other case laws cited above, as applicable to the facts of the case, in our view, receipt of Rs. 5,21,300/- by the assessee from his....