Case Law Details
Snehalata Sitani Vs JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has contended that the provisions of section 269SS are not strictly applicable to the transactions between the relatives and the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271D and confirmed by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Manisha Prakash Amin v. Jt. CIT vide its order dated 24-5-2011 passed in ITA No. 1839/Kol/2010, wherein it was held that the transactions between relatives involving receipt of loan in cash are not in the nature of loans or deposits as envisaged in section 269SS of the Act and the penalty imposed under section 271D was accordingly cancelled by the Tribunal. A similar issue was again decided by the Tribunal in the case of Anant Himatsingka v. Addl. CIT (ITA Nos. 331 & 332/Kol/2010) dated 25-11-2011) cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, wherein it was held that the loan transaction between son-in law and father-in-law for giving a support and help was not a loan or deposit in stricter sense of section 269SS of the Act and the same having been given only as a financial support, the relevant transaction did not fall in the ambit of section 269SS of the Act. In our opinion, the ratio of these decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal is squarely applicable in the present case, where the loans in question were received by the assessee in cash from her daughter and son-in-law and applying the same, we hold that the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271D and confirmed by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) is not sustainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of taxguru.in learned Commissioner(Appeals), Jalpaiguri dated 16-2-2018, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 3,42,000 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of caps, handles, packing materials, PET jars, bottles etc. under the name and style of her proprietary concern M/s. Krishna Industries. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by her on 21-12-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 3,20,860. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee had taken fresh unsecured loans during the year under consideration from her daughter Smt. Monika Sitani and her son-in-law Shri Ajay Kumar Jain amounting to Rs. 95,000 and Rs. 2,66,000 otherwise than by account payee cheques or account payee Bank Drafts. Since the said loans were taken by the assessee in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, penalty proceedings under section 271D were initiated by the assessing officer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
