No Section 271D Penalty for transactions between father & son

Mohammadyusuf R.Dargad Vs ACIT. (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? In the present case, AO noticed that assessee accepted loan through bearer cheque from his father. Accordingly, he levied penalty under section 271D for violating provisions of section 269SS. ITAT states that penalty under section 271D of the Act shall not be levied in the case of near relatives. In present case, though the transactions were between two entities both the entities are proprietary concerns of father and son. This fact was not ...