Case Law Details
DCIT/ACIT Vs Shri Sanjay Shenoy (ITAT Bangalore)
The material in record clearly goes to show that the assessee as well as Dr. P Dayananda Pai who were admittedly nephew and uncle and confirmed that the loans were personal loans to enable the assessee to purchase a flat. The source of cash has also been explained by Dr. P Dayananda Pai in his letter addressed to the AO dated 21/2/2013. The facts as asserted by the assessee and supported by Dr. P Dayananda Pai have not been controverted with any material by the Revenue. In the circumstance, we concur with the view of the CIT(A) that the moneys in question were received and repaid for personal transaction and there is no material to come to the conclusion that these were in relation to any business transactions. The decision relied on by the ld.Counsel for the assessee before us and several other decisions clearly supports the proposition that acceptance and repayment of cash for personal purpose between near relatives do not attract the provisions of sec.269AA and 269T of the Act.
In the case of CIT Vs. Smt. M Yesodha, 351 ITR 265, an amount received by assessee from her father-in-law was held to be outside the ambit of sec. 269SS of the Act. In the case of Ms. Nanda Kumari Vs. ITO, Tax case appeal No.968 of 2018 and judgment dated 20/12/2018 wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that receipt of cash by the daughter-in-law from father-in-law does not attract the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act. Similarly, the Hon’ble Kolkatta High Court in ITA No.111 of 2012, GA No.1498 of 2012 approved the view of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Shri Mansur Ali Laskar in ITA No.1094/Kol/2011 dated 30/12/2011 wherein, it was held that niece, uncle, aunty, wife of brother, wife’s sister and cousin are part of family members and the transactions with sister-in-law and nephew should also to be considered as a transaction between family members. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in canceling the penalty imposed by the AO. Consequently, all these appeals are dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These are appeals filed by the Revenue against the common order dated 23/3/2016 of CIT(A)-1, Bengaluru relating to asst. years 2006-07 and 2008-09, insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and 2006-07 and 2007-08, insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty u/s 271E of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
