Case Law Details
Nabil Javed Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Provisions of section 269SS was not applicable to the loan transaction between husband and wife because there was no relationship of the depositor or a creditor and no interest of parties were involved.
Held: AO did not appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 269SS were not applicable on the loan transaction between husband and wife and levied penalty u/s. 271D on the impugned transaction. In the case of Tuhinara Begum Hoogly Vs. JCIT Range 2, Hoogly ITA No. 2256/Kol/2014 dated 04.10.2017 it was noted wife gave money to husband for construction of a house which was naturally a joint venture for the property of the family only. This transaction was not for commercial use. The amount directly received by the husband. i.e assessee. was to the extent of Rs. 17.000 only and the balance amount of Rs. 26.000 was given by payment directly to the supplier of the material required for the construction of the house. Though the expenditure was apparently incurred by the husband being the karta/head of the family, it could not be said that the wife could not have any interest of her own in this house being constructed. The transaction was neither loan nor any gift as no ‘interest’ element was involved and there was no promise to return the amount with or without interest. Therefore, section 269SS was not applicable to the loan transaction between husband and wife because there was no relationship of the depositor or a creditor as no interest was involved and penalty should be deleted as assessee had a reasonable cause under section 273B. Following the same, penalty levied u/s 271D in the present case was deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The Assessee has filed these two Appeals against the respective Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
