There is no dispute about the fact, that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern, and that, these transactions were between the family, and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts, and which has no tax effect, in our view establishes “reasonable cause” under Section 273B of the Act. Since the respondent- assessee, had satisfactorily established “reasonable cause” under Section 273B of the Act, he must be deemed to have established sufficient cause for not invoking the penal provisions (Sections 271D and 271E of the Act) against him.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I.T.A. No. 777 of 2008, I.T.A. No. 778 of 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad
Versus
Sunil Kumar Goel
Date of Decision:- 3.3.2009
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present:- Mr.Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Kashmiri Lal Goel, Advocate for the respondent.
J.S.KHEHAR, J. (ORAL)
Through the instant order, we propose to dispose of ITA Nos.777 and 778 of 2008. The issue which arises for consideration is the validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench on 19.1.2007, whereby, the penalty imposed on the respondent- assessee under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was ordered to be set aside.
The basis of the controversy raised in the instant appeals emerges from the order dated 11.10.1993 (Annexure A1) passed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, showing that the respondent- assessee Sunil Kumar Goel had taken the following loans in cash:-
