Smt. Meera Devi Kumawat Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur):
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271D could not be levied on wife for receiving money from her husband for purchase of family property as practice of registering the property in name of the wife was guided by various family and societal factors besides encouragement of the Government for such transactions entered into by female members in the family by way of reduced stamp duty and she had offered reasonable explanation justifying the cash transactions
Held: Assessee-wife had received Rs. 6,00,000/-from her husband by way of demand draft for payment towards purchase of plot no. 356 and remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- was received in cash. The plot of land had been registered in the name of assessee and source of such investment was money received from her husband. A notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271D was served on assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271D should not be levied. Assessee submitted that in the case of husband and wife, repayment was not mandatory and there was no interest burden therefore it was not justifiable to impose penalty u/s 271D. It was held that practice of registering the property in name of the wife was guided by various family and societal factors besides encouragement of the Government for such transactions entered into by female members in the family by way of reduced stamp duty. It was found that there was payment of consideration by way of demand draft for Rs 6 lacs which had been paid in advance and remaining amount of Rs 1 lacs which had been paid in cash at the time of registry and handing over of the possession. Assessee had no option but to discharge the remaining consideration in cash at the time of registry as so insisted by the seller of the property and in absence thereof, the deal might had not fructified. The explanation so furnished as reasonable and plausible and transactions had been duly documented including the payment through demand draft and cash which was from the known sources of funds contributed by the assessee’s husband. Assessee had offered reasonable explanation justifying the cash transactions and thus, she didn’t deserve to be punished by way of levy of penalty u/s 271D for receiving money from her husband for purchase of family property and hence, the same was directed to be deleted.
