TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proprietor of M/s. Surabi PVC Pipes and filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 20.01.2018 declaring taxable income of Rs..3,03,720/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] by the CPC. Since the assessee has accepted cash for the consideration of the sale of immovable property and the amount was more than Rs..20,000/-, in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act. In accordance with the provisions of section 274 of the Act, a show cause notice under section 271D of the Act was issued and served on 12.10.2021 and called for explanation from the assessee. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D of the Act for the reason that the assessee has received loan amount in cash in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer, against the show cause notice under section 271D of the Act, the assessee has filed a detailed written submission vide letter dated 20.09.2021 and 20.10.2021 stating that the cash loan received from the close relatives viz., wife, father-in-law & mother, were treated as gift. However, the Assessing Officer has ignored the above explanations and confirmations furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y transaction, all that is required to be seen is as to whether the explanation offered was reasonable. Admittedly, the amount was borrowed by the assessee from her maternal uncle and maternal aunt. 10. In more or less identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court granted relief to the assessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Smt.M.Yesodha [reported in (2013) 351 ITR 265]. In the said case, the assessee claimed to have taken a loan of Rs. 20,99,393/- from her father in law for purchasing a property. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee had obtained the said loan in cash from her father in law, which was in con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 273B of the Act and that therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the genuineness of the transaction was not disputed. 11. Even before us, Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the provision namely Section 273D of the Act uses the expression 'reasonable cause' and not the expression 'sufficient cause' and that the Authorities below rightly found that the reason given by the assessee was not a reasonable cause. 12. However, a similar contention was rejected by the Division Bench in the decision in the case of Smt.M.Yesodha wherein it was held that even though the assessee had not taken a specific plea of reasonable cause, it must be considered as applied to human....