TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 27.05.2011. 2. The brief facts qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.9,49,772/- out of gross receipt of Rs.1,17,32,490/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny u/s.143(2) of the Act and AO has completed the assessment by making various additions. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that there was cash transaction of loan with his wife Smt. Usha Singh, which violated the provisions of section 269SS & 269T of the Act. The loan taken by the assessee in cash from his wife was Rs.8,54,000/- and total loan repaid in cash for Rs.5,00,000/-. The AO observed that these cash transaction of loan violated the provisions of section 269T of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her& son, husband & wife. The assessee also cited two judgment before the CIT(A) Viz: in the case of Sri Madhu Ghosh Vs. J.C.I.T ( ITA No. 271/Kol/09), the assessee wherein received an advance of Rs.5 Lakhs from his relative and accordingly, it was held that Section 269SS of the Act will not apply. Similarly, in the case of Manoj Kumar Narari Vs. ITO ITA No.1679/kol/11 dated 20.04.2012, wherein it was a fact that impugned transaction was in the nature of trade and advance received for supply of special type of fertilizer and under such assurance, such amount was advanced by his brother which was repaid. In such a circumstances it was held that provisions of section 271E read with Section 269T of the Act do not apply. However, the CIT(A) ign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion in upholding the action of the Ld. Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range 2, Durgapur of passing the specious order imposing penalty to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- misconstruing the expression "any other persons" appearing in the provisions of s.269T of the Act and his purported finding reached on such tenuous premise is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 3. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) Durgapur acted unlawfully in upholding the order imposing penalty u/s.271E of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- passed by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range 2, Durgapur and was remiss in not taking into consideration the reasonable cause as envisaged within the scope and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illing Station was in violation of section 40A(3) and made addition on that account. The AO further found from the cash book that for the purpose of making payment of the cash to Raj Luxmi Auto Filling Station the assessee took cash loan from his wife Smt. Usha Singh on different occasions whenever the cash was needed and also repaid the said cash money when the availability of funds was there. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the loan was taken by the assessee from his wife which is not disputed and whenever surplus cash was available the amount was repaid to his wife. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the transaction between husband and wife cannot attract the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The Ld. Counsel also subm....