Case Law Details
Sunil M. Bhide Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune)
It is seen from the penalty order that the assessee pleaded before the AO that he started construction of a commercial building on his plot. The construction work was halted because of paucity of funds. The said plot of land along with part construction was leased out to one company, which is related with the assessee’s family members. As the construction was lying pending and the assessee was to complete the same, the company applied for a loan in the State Bank of India. The loan was not disbursed because of certain bank formalities.
The assessee received loan from his family members ranging from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 10.00 lakh in cash aggregating to Rs.29.00 lakh and diverted the same to the company so as to complete the construction work. This assertion has not been controverted by the AO.
This shows that the assessee was compelled by the circumstances to accept the loans in contravention of provisions of section 269SS. As regards the repayment of loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to one of the family members, there was a pressing demand on the assessee for immediate repayment because the lender, namely, Ms. Sandhya Sunil Bhide urgently required the money back. Admittedly, there is violation of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, which otherwise calls for imposition of penalties u/ss.271D and 271E of the Act.
However, it is relevant to note that these penalties are subject to the mandate of section 273B, which provides that where the assessee proves `reasonable cause’ for the contravention of the provisions, inter alia, of section 269SS and 269T, the penalty otherwise imposable u/s.271D and 271E will not be inflicted. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee has established a ‘reasonable cause’ for accepting the loans in cash and repaying a part of them again in cash due to pressing requirements. We, therefore, order to delete the penalties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
