RAJENDRA MEENA, Jaipur V. JCIT, Jaipur

ITA 1006/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5654 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GOGRA; S S GOGRA
• Keywords: Gift; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

- VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1006, 814, 1007, 1008 & 815/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05,2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA 855, AAKRON KA RASTA KISHANPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE JCIT CENTRAL RANGE JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AFZPM 1966 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.K. GOGRA, CA AND SHRI S.S. GOGRA, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/01/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 4, JAIPUR I.E. ONE DATED 03-06-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05,2005-06, 2007-08, AND 2008 -09 RESPECTIVELY REGARDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT AND OTHER DATED ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 2 3-06-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 REGARDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE ACT 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN ASSESSEES ITA NO. 1006 TO 1008/JP/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AS U NDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 3-06-2016. THE APP ELLANT UNDER THE BONA FIDE IMPRESSION SUBMITTED SINGLE APP EAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHICH WAS PASSED BY HIM AS SINGLE ORDER. THE APPELLANT IN FORM NO. 36 IN COLUMN NO. 3 & 3B MENTIONED THE REFERENCE OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS REALIZED B Y THE APPELLANT THAT THE TWO APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIL ED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT IN RESPECT OF ABOVE BOTH THE YEA RS. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 11-11-2016 THE APPELLANT REQUESTE D TO THE HON'BLE ITAT TO TREAT THE APPEAL FILED ON 12-09-20 16 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. SINCE THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE NO TICED VOLUNTARILY, THEREFORE, THE SEPARATE APPEAL IN RESP ECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ARE BE ING SUBMITTED. THE DELAY OF 63 DELAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. 2. THAT THE DELAY MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED KEEPING IN VIEW OF INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE PO OR APPLICANT. 3. THAT THE APPEAL FEE OF RS. 500/- FOR A.Y. 2004-0 5 IS DEPOSITED ON 7-11-2016, A.Y. 2007-08 IS DEPOSITED O N 11- 11-2016 & - A.Y.2008-09 IS DEPOSITED ON 7-11-2016 AND COPY OF THE CHALLAN ARE ENCLOSED WITH MEMO OF APPEA L. 4. THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 3 IT IS THEREFORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OCCUR RED DUE TO BONAFIDE AND REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED FOR IMPARTING JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION APPLICA TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR LATE FILING OF THE APPEALS. 2.3 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONDONATION APPLICATIONS FOR LATE FIL ING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF H ON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KA TIJI AND OTHERS, 167 ITR 471 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED POWER TO CONDONE DE LAY BY ENACTING SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE EXPRESSION ' SUFFICIENT CAUS E ' IN SECTION 5 IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY TH E LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE--THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTIO N OF COURTS. A JUSTIFIABLY LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO BE ADOPTED ON P RINCIPLE. THUS THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE ALLOWED. 3.1 APROPOS ASSESSEE'S SOLITARY GROUND FOR IMPOSITI ON OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT IN THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005- ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 4 06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FRO M THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE AYS AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH PENALTY ORDERS PASSED U/S 271D OF THE ACT FOR THE YEARS. I HAVE AL SO TAKEN A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL AS APPLI CABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. ON PERUSAL OF SUBMISSION, IT IS S EEN ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN CASH EXC EEDING RS. 20,000/- FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS. A.Y. RECEIVED FROM AMOUNT IN CASH 2005-06 SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEENA & SHRI RAMKARAN MEENA RS. 80,000/- 2007-08 SHRI RAM SWAROOPMEENA RS.2,05,000/- 2008-09 SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEENA RS. 1,30,000/- 2004-05 SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEENA RS. 2,00,000/- SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEENA, ELDER BROTHER/ BROTHER AND ALSO THE KEY PERSON OF THE NARAYANJI GAJJAK GROUP I N A.YS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2004-05 AND SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEE NA ALONGWITH SHRI RAM KARAN MEENA IN A.Y. 2005-06 HAD GIVEN MONEY IN CASH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- IN VIOLA TION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AS MENTION ED ABOVE. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT ACCOUNT ON URGENT BASIS TO MEET BUSINESS LIABILITY . EXPLANATIONS GIVEN IN THIS REGARD DOES NOT SEEM TO BE BONAFIDE AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN EXACT NA TURE OF URGENT BUSINESS REQUIREMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A/C MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE IS A COMPOSITE A/C WHICH CON TAIN DETAILS OF ENTRIES IN CHEQUE (ESPECIALLY FOR SALARY TRANSACTION & LOAN TRANSACTION) AND CASH TRANSACTIONS BUT EVEN AFTER REPEATED REQUEST, NO SUCH LEDGER A/C OR CASH BOOK O F COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THIS, CASE LAWS AS RELIED UPON WILL BE OF NO USE TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 5 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY ITS CONT ENTION, PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272D OF THE ACT IN FOLLOWING CAS ES ARE HEREBY JUSTIFIED. ITA NO. A.Y. PENALTY IMPOSED ORDER DT. 301/12-13 2005-06 RS. 80,000 22/06/2012 302/12-13 2007-08 RS. 2,05,000 22/06/2012 303/12-13 2008-09 RS. 1,30,000 22/06/2012 364/12-13 2004-05 RS. 2,00,000 28/06/2012 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FAILS IN GR. NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 301 ,302,303 & 364/12/-13 FOR A.Y. 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2 004-05 IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS STANDS DISMISSED AS IT A NO. 301 TO 303 & 364/12/-13 FOR A.Y. 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008 -09 & 2004- 05. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FUNDS IN FORM OF CONTRIBUTION / GIFT FROM HIS REAL ELDER BROTHERS (RAMSWAROOP MEENA & RA MKARAN MEENA) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 20 08-09 RESPECTIVELY. A.Y. 2004-05 A.Y. 2005-06 S.N. NAME OF PERSON DATE AMOUNT TAKEN NAME OF PERSON DATE AMOUNT TAKEN 1. RAMSWAROOP MEENA 2-04-2003 2,00,000 RAMSWAROOP MEENA 15-08-04 20,000 2. - - - RAMKARAN MEENA 31-03-05 60,000 TOTAL 2,00,0 00 TOTAL 80,000 ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 6 A.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2008-09 S.N. NAME OF PERSON DATE AMOUNT TAKEN NAME OF PERSON DATE AMOUNT TAKEN 1. RAMSWAROOP MEENA 19-01-07 1,05,000 RAMSWAROOP MEENA 28-01-08 60,000 2. RAMSWAROOP MEENA 2-03-07 1,00,000 RAMSWAROOP MEENA 2-03-07 70,000 TOTAL 2,05,000 TOTAL 1,30,000 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING SIMI LAR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO ABOVE APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION. 1. THAT FUNDS ARE TAKEN BY APPELLANT IN FORM OF C ONTRIBUTION/ GIFT FROM HIS ELDER BROTHERS AND ARE RECORDED FOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE FUNDS ARE RECEIVED FOR MEETING HIS PERSONAL N EEDS. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THESE FUNDS TO MEET HIS URGENT FAMILY REQ UIREMENT I.E. FOR PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEES OF CHILDREN, FOR FAMILY AND HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURES. THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED TO ID AO AND ID CIT(A) AND BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LEVYING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271D, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THAT FUNDS RECEIVED BY APPELLANT IS WRONGLY TERM ED AS LOAN/ DEPOSIT BY ID AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). LOAN REFE RS TO MONEY LENT TO A BORROWER FOR SHORT-TERM, LONG TERM OR FOR SPEC IFIED PERIOD. LOAN CARRIES A SPECIFIC RATE OF INTEREST AS AGREED BETWE EN THE LENDER & THE BORROWER AND THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. A LOAN MA Y BE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE OR FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE. ON THE OTHER HAND ADVANCE REFERS TO MONEY PAID IN ADVANCE TO ANYONE TO MEET SPECIFIC FU TURE EXPENSE, LIABILITY OR TO TIDE OVER SOME SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT S. ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS LOAN IS ALWAYS UNDE R A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE LENDER AND THE BORROWER & I T CARRIES INTEREST BUT GENERALLY ADVANCE IS MADE WITHOUT AGREEMENT AND MAY NOT CARRY INTEREST IN ALL CASES. THE TERM LOAN IS DEFINED IN THE LAW LEXICON AS- TO LOAN IS TO LEND A THING TO ANOTHER, EITHER GRATU ITOUSLY OR FOR REWARD. IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE LOAN, THERE MUST BE A THING LOANED, A LENDER, AND A BORROWER, AS WELL AS A CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES. THE TERM DEPOSIT IS DEFINED IN THE LAW LEXICON AS ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 7 THING STORED OR ENTRUSTED FOR SAFE KEEPING; AN ACT BY WHICH A PERSON RECEIVES THE THING OF ANOTHER PERSON, WITH THE OBLI GATION TO KEEP IT AND TO RETURN IT IN KIND; A NAKED BAILMENT OF GOODS, TO BE KEPT FOR THE DEPOSITOR WITHOUT REWARD AND TO BE RETURNED WHEN H E SHALL REQUIRE IT; THE DELIVERY OF A THING FOR CUSTODY, TO BE REDELIVE RED ON DEMAND, WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THE ESSENCE OF A DEPOSIT IS THAT THERE MUST BE A LIABILITY TO RETURN IT TO THE PARTY BY WHOM OR ON W HOSE BEHALF IT IS MADE ON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE WORD ADVANCE AS DEFINED IN LAW LEXICON CONVE YS THE IDEA OF FURNISHING, TENDERING OR OFFERING SOMETHING WHICH M AY BE RETURNED IN THE SAME FORM, IT IS ALSO DEFINED AS MONEY IN WHOL E OR IN PART, FORMING THE CONSIDERATION. THUS FUNDS COUPLED WITH ABOVE CONDITIONS MAY BE TER MED AS LOAN OR ADVANCE AND MERELY FUNDS ARE TRANSFERRED IN BETWEEN OF FAMILY MEMBERS CAN NOT BE TERMED AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT, THERE FORE ACTION OF ID AO AND CONFIRMING THE CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE DECLARED AS ILLEGAL AND MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN BETWEEN REAL BROTHERS O F JOINT FAMILY. THE FAMILY TREE OF APPELLANT IS GIVEN BELOW:- (I) SHRI RAMSWROOP MEENA ELDER BROTHER (II) SHRI RAMKARAN MEENA ELDER BROTHER (III) SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA APPELLANT HIMSELF (IV) SHRI JITENDRA MEENA YOUNGER BROTHER THAT THE APPELLANT RESIDES IN JOINT FAMILY ALONGWIT H HIS BROTHERS FAMILY AND ENGAGED IN OLD PARENTAL BUSINE SS OF MANUFACTURING & SALE GAJAK, TILPATTI ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH PROCEEDINGS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF SHRI RAMSWROOP ME ENA (ELDER BROTHER) AND WHILE REPLYING ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. : 6,8,9,12,13,17 WHICH WERE IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE FAMILY CONSISTING O F ALL HIS THREE ELDER BROTHER AND THEIR FAMILIES AND ANSWERED BY MR. RAMS WROOP MEENA (ELDER BROTHER) ONLY AND NO QUESTION WAS ASKED FROM ANY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THESE STATEMENTS WERE RELIED UPON AND NO OBJECTION / COUNTER EXAMINATION WERE MADE BY INCOME TAX AUTHORI TY, WHICH ALSO CORROBORATES THAT DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THAT NARA YANJI GROUP IS HAVING ONE & JOINT FAMILY. WHEN IT IS CLEAR CUT FI NDING BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER THAT APPELLANT LIVES IN JOINT FAMILY HAVING COMMON CONTROL OF FUNDS BY ELDER BROTHER (SHRI RAMS WROOP MEENA), THEN TREATING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ONE BROTHER TO ANOTHER AND AMONGST FAMILY MEMBERS IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL BY TREATING TH E SAME AS LOAN OR ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 8 DEPOSIT IN HANDS OF APPELLANT. FOR BEING LOAN THER E HAS TO BE TWO PERSONS AND COUPLED WITH CONDITIONS OF REPAYMENT OF FUNDS. THAT ONE SINGLE PERSON MR. RAMSWROOP MEENA IS MANAG ING ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF GROUP AND DECISION TO TR ANSFER FUNDS FROM ONE CONCERN TO ANOTHER OR TO REPAY THE FUNDS COULD HAVE BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TRANSACTION PARTAKE THE NATURE OF EITHER DEPOSIT OR LOAN. THE CASH OF ALL FAMILY MEMBERS WERE BEING KEPT WITH KEY PERSON (MR. RAMSWROOP MEENA) AND THERE IS NO PHYSICAL MOVEMENT OF CASH FR OM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER PERSON AND MERELY BOOK ENTRIES ARE BEING PA SSED UPON. THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF MR. RAMSWROOP MEENA (ELDER BRO THER) DT. 21.11.2011 WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO ID AO AND ID CIT (A) IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH THE CONTENTIO N THAT ONE PERSON WAS MANAGING THE ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ENTIRE GROUP. 4. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS UNDERTAKEN WITH BONAFI DE INTENTION. AND NO INGENUITY IS BROUGHT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ABOVE YEAR. THE RETURN INCOME IS ACCEPTED. WHEN THE RE IS NO CASE AGAINST ASSESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD ANYTHI NG TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 5. THAT ID AO ERRED IN LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271 D OF THE ACT ON ENTIRE AMOUNT OF FUNDS TAKEN. THAT WITHOUT ADMITTIN G ANYTHING ON OUR PART IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY MAY NOT BE LEVIED ON ENTIRE VALUE OF FUNDS AND MAY BE LEVIED ONLY ON FUNDS WHICH ARE HIG HER THAN RS. 20,000/-. IN THE PRESENT CASE FUNDS TAKEN FROM EAC H PERSON IS UPTO RS. 20,000/-, THEREFORE LEVY OF PENALTY ILLEGAL AND MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 6. THAT WE PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS W HICH ARE SQUARELY COVERS THE APPELLANTS CASE:- 1. CIT VS. MAHESHWARI NIRMAN UDYOG 2008 302 ITR 201 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) HELD THAT WHETHER A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION WAS GENU INE OR OTHERWISE IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND IF IT HAD BEEN FOUND BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN REASONABLE CA USE FOR ACCEPTING THE MONEY IN CASH IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY U/S . 271D CAN NOT BE IMPOSED. 2. CIT VS. YASUNDARA DEVI 2015 66 (II) ITCL PAGE 578 (CHENNAI TRIB UNAL ) HELD THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS WERE G ENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTIONS. THE SOURCE OF MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 9 DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF HUF. FURTHER IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE VERY PURPOSE OF BRINGING IN THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T WAS TO CURB THE PRACTICE OF INTRODUC ING BLACK MONEY INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTIO N TO EVADE TAX AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY LIABILITY. THE INDIVIDUAL HAD ACCEPTED LOANS FROM HUF FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING SUCH L OANS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED B Y AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME WAS SET ASIDE. RELIANCE PLACED O N JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. YESHODHA REPORTED IN 2013 351 ITR PAGE 265 MADRAS HIGH COURT) 3. DY. CIT VS. TIRUMALARAJU TRINADHU RAJU 2016 69 (II) ITCL 342 (CHENNAI TRIBUNAL) HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF LEDGER OF LOAN ACCOUNT, IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED TWO DEPOSITS BY WAY OF MONEY TRANSFER FROM BANK AND BALANCE CREDIT WAS ACCEPTED BY BOOK ADJUST MENT. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE BOOK ENTRY W AS TRANSFERRED FROM HIS WIFE ACCOUNT TOWARDS AMOUNT PAID TO THIRD PARTY BY WAY OF CHEQUE ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASS ESSEE HAD NOT ACCEPTED ANY LOANS ON DEPOSITS BY CASH IN CONTRAVEN TION OF SECTION 269SS. THUS MERELY ON BOOK ENTRIES NO PENALTY CAN B E LEVIED U/S. 271D. 4. CIT VS. AJANTA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS 2003 - 264 - ITR - PAGE 505 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT) HELD THAT WHILE LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271D FOR VI OLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 20,000 /- IS TO BE ALLOWED WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE U/S. 269SS. 5. SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. C IT 2016 TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 VISHAKHAPATN AM TRIBUNAL HELD THAT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF `JUDG MENT OF RAJ. HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AJANTA DYING & PRINTING MILLS HELD THAT PENALTY SHALL BE LEVIED AFTER EXCLUDING RS. 20,000/- IN EA CH CASE AS PERMISSIBLE U/S. 269SS OF THE ACT. CONCLUSIVELY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS . 2.00 LACS, RS. ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 10 80,000/- , RS. 2.05 LACS AND RS. 1.30 LACS FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY U/S 271D OF THE ACT WHICH SHOULD BE DELETED. 3.3 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 3.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS T HAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271D O F THE ACT OF RS. 2.00 LACS, RS. 80,000/-, RS. 2.05 LACS AND RS. 1.30 LACS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPE CTIVELY. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE FUNDS WERE TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE IN FORM OF CONTRIBUTION / GIFT FROM HIS ELDER BROTHERS WHICH A RE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE FUNDS WERE RECEIVED FOR MEET ING HIS PERSONAL NEEDS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKE N THESE FUNDS TO MEET OUT HIS URGENT FAMILY REQUIREMENTS I.E. FOR PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEES OF CHILDREN AND HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMI TTED THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE BETWEEN THE REAL BROTHERS OF JOINT FAMILY. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT ONE SINGLE PERSON SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA IS MANAGING ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND GROUP AND DECISION TO TRANSFE R OF FUNDS FROM ONE ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 11 CONCERN TO ANOTHER OR TO REPAY THE FUNDS IS DONE BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA DATE D 21-11-2011 IS PLACED ON RECORD INDICATING THEREIN HIS CONTENTION THAT ONE PERSON IS MANAGING THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF ENTIRE GROUP. THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS UNDERTAKEN WIT H BONA FIDE INTENTION AND NO INGENUITY IS BROUGHT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTED AND IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT SECTION 271D READ WITH SECTION 269SS WAS INTRODUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO DISCOURAGE THE MEN ACE OF BLACK MONEY. SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, THIS ELEMENT OF BLACK MONEY IS TOTALLY RULED OUT. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT ON SI MILAR TYPE OF ISSUE THE ITAT COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. KUSUM DHAMANI VS. ADDL. CIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13-06-2014 IN ITA NO. 847/JP/2011 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAD DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF TH E ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE REC ORD THERE IS NO SHRED OF DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS AND THEIR DISCLOSURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RETURNS OF B OTH THE ASSESSEE WHO ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 12 HAPPEN TO BE HUSBAND AND WIFE, CARRYING ON THE BUSI NESS AS SISTER CONCERNS. SECTION 271D READ WITH SECTION 269SS WAS INTRODUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO DISCOURAGE THE MENACE OF BLACK MONEY . SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, THIS ELEMENT OF BLACK MON EY IS TOTALLY RULED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION IN OUR V IEW IS NOT UNREASONABLE AND IS BASED ON BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AL SO FOR PAYMENTS TO LABOURERS AND LENDERS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BEING GENUINE AND THE ASSESS EE HAVING OFFERED REASONABLE EXPLANATION JUSTIFYING THESE CASH TRANSA CTIONS, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271D IS NOT LEVIABLE. OUR VIE W IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'B LE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAINI MED ICAL STORE (SUPRA) WHICH IS FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA). THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON ABOVE, THE PENALTY IS DELETED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT COORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. KUSUM DHAMANI VS. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA) AN D ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY :- 1. CIT VS. MAHESHWARI NIRMAN UDYOG (2008) 302 ITR 2 01 (RAJ.) 2. CIT VS. YASUNDARA DEVI (2015) 66 (II)ITCL 578 ( CHENNAI TRIBUNAL). 3. DCIT VS. TRIUMALARAJU TRINADHU RAJU (2016) 69(II ) ITCL 342 (CHENNAI TRIBUNAL). 4. CIT VS. AJANTA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS (2003) 26 4 ITR 505 (RAJ.) 5. SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. C IT (2016) TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 VISHAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL I DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 2.00 LACS, R S. 80,000/- , RS. 2.05 LACS AND RS. 1.30 LACS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2007-08 ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 13 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY U/S 271D OF THE ACT SUSTAI NED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (SUPRA ). THUS ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO. 1006, 814, 1007 & 1008 /JP/2016 OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 271D OF THE ACT ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 815/JP/2016 A.Y. 2010-11- U/S 271E OF TH E ACT 4.1 APROPOS SOLITARY GROUND OF ASSESSEE FOR IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY OF RS. 95,000/- U/S 271E OF THE ACT, THE FACTS AS EMER GES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.1.2. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271E OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF SUB MISSION, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID IN CASH TO SHRI R AMSWAROOP MEENA RS. 95,000/- ON 31-12-2009. DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DIRECTORS NAMELY SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA IS DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY AND THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO HIS A/C AND THE BALANCE STAN DING ARE OUT OF ACCUMULATED FUND IN RESPECT OF LABOUR WORK CHARGES PAID BY THE COMPANY. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN DOES NOT SEEM TO BE JUSTIFIED. EVEN A.R. WAS ASKED TO FURTHER ELA BORATE CONTRIBUTION OF SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA AS DIRECTOR, BUT NO FURTHER DETAILS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TILL DATE. EVEN, AFTER REPEATED REQUEST, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COPY OF LE DGER A/C WHICH SHOWS THAT AMOUNT ACCUMULATED IN THE A/C REPR ESENT REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE DIRECTOR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE' S CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE IN CASH TO S HRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271E OF THE ACT IS SUSTAINED. AS SESSEE'S APPEAL FAILS IN GR. NO. 1. ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 14 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 4.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID FOLLOWING FUND IN THE FO RM OF CONTRIBUTION / GIFT TO HIS REAL BROTHER SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. S.N. NAME OF PERSON DATE AMOUNT TAKEN NATURE OF FUNDS 1. RAMSWAROOP MEENA 31-12-2009 95,000/- FUNDS IN FO RM OF CONTRIBUTION/ GIFT BY REAL ELDER BROTHER THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SION TO THIS EFFECT WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE CASE L AWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. M/S. SHREEPATI DEVELOPER & BUILDER LTD. VS. ADDL . CIT (2015) 65 (II) ITCL PAGE 423 (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL) HELD THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS N OT DISPUTED. NO MALAFIDE ACT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE TRANSACTIONS. RE VENUE HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT OF ANY M ONEY LAUNDERING OR EVASION OF TAX AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE FINDI NGS GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF LODH A BUILDERS (P) LTD. (163 TTJ 778) WERE SQUARELY APPLICABLE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271E IN THIS CASE WAS ALSO ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 2. CIT VS. YASUNDARA DEVI 2015 66 (II) ITCL PAGE 578 (CHENNAI TRIB UNAL ) HELD THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS WERE G ENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTIONS. THE SOURCE OF MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF HUF. FURTHER IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 15 THAT ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE VERY PURPOSE OF BRINGING IN THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T WAS TO CURB THE PRACTICE OF INTRODUC ING BLACK MONEY INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTIO N TO EVADE TAX AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY LIABILITY. THE INDIVIDUAL HAD ACCEPTED LOANS FROM HUF FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING SUCH L OANS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED B Y AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME WAS SET ASIDE. RELIANCE PLACED O N JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. YESHODHA REPORTED IN 2013 351 ITR PAGE 265 MADRAS HIGH COURT) 3. CIT VS. AJANTA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS 2003 - 264 - ITR - PAGE 505 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT) HELD THAT WHILE LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271D FOR VI OLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 20,000 /- IS TO BE ALLOWED WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE U/S. 269SS. 4. SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. C IT 2016 TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 VISHAKHAPATN AM TRIBUNAL HELD THAT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF `JUDG MENT OF RAJ. HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AJANTA DYING & PRINTING MILLS HELD THAT PENALTY SHALL BE LEVIED AFTER EXCLUDING RS. 20,000/- IN EA CH CASE AS PERMISSIBLE U/S. 269SS OF THE ACT. CONCLUSIVELY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 2 71E OF THE ACT OF RS. 95,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHICH SHOULD BE DELETED. 4.3 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 4.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE FUND TO THE TUNE OF RS. 95,000/- IN THE F ORM OF CONTRIBUTION/ GIFT TO HIS ELDER BROTHER SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA ON 31-12 -2009 WHICH IS ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 16 RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE FUNDS ARE PAID FOR MEETING URGENT NEED OF HIS ELDER BROTHER. THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . IT IS NOTE D THAT RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AND THERE WAS NO CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE RE CORD THAT ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS UNDERTAKEN WITH BONA FIDE INTENTION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT ON SIMILAR TYPE OF ISSUE THE ITAT (SMC) JAIPUR BENCH I N THE CASE OF LALLU RAM SAINI VS. ITO (ITA NO. 676/JP/2015 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 VIDE ORDER DATED 21-10-2016) HAD DELETED THE PEN ALTY U/S 271E OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE REPAYMENTS OF LOANS OF RS. 4,59,560/- I.E. RS. 3,28,260/- TO M/S. MAGMA SHRAC HI FINANCE LTD. AND RS. 1,31,330/- TO M/S. SHRI RAM ST ONE CUTTING INDUSTRIES FOR WHICH THE ADDL. CIT OBSERVED THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE AC T AND THUS HE IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 4,59,560/- IN FIRST AP PEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,28,260/- ONL Y IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS OF PAYMENT BY CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE (PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A LOAN OF RS. 5.00 LACS FROM M/S. MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. ON 7- 04-2007 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE USED TO PAY T HE INSTALMENTS EVERY MONTH IN CASH TO THE REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 17 FINANCE COMPANY WHO ISSUED THE RECEIPTS FOR TAKING THE CASH PAYMENT FROM THE PARTIES. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE PAYMENT COULD NOT BE MADE BY CHEQUE AS THE FINANCE COMPANY DID NOT ACCEPT THE OU TSTATION CHEQUE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D THE COPIES OF THE CASH RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE O F M/S. MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. WHICH IS FILED AT PAGES 2 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE BIFU RCATION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3,28,260/- PAID TO M/S. MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. WHICH COMPRISES OF RS. 41,418/ - IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND RS. 2,86,842/- IN RESPECT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN AMOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF I TAT GAUHATI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ADDL.CIT VS. SMT. PRA HATI BARUAH 133 TAXMAN 74 (MAZ) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 269T AND SECTION 271E IN TH E STATUTE IS TO PREVENT PROLIFERATION OF BLACK / UNACCOUNTED MONEY DEPOSITED WITH BANKS AND OTHER PERSONS BY INTRODUCI NG THE SYSTEM OF REPAYMENT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES A ND DRAFTS AND, THUS, TO ENSURE THAT THE IDENTITY OF TH E PAYEE IS ESTABLISHED. WHERE THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER TO WH OM REPAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE WAS KNOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION WAS NOT IN DOUBT, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE BREACH OF LAW, IF ANY, W AS DELIBERATE AND THE DEFAULT, IF ANY, COULD BE SAID T O BE A TECHNICAL DEFAULT FOR WHICH NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEV IABLE. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS AND THE C ASE LAW CITED (SUPRA), I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALT Y OF RS.3,28,260/- IMPOSED U/S 271E OF THE ACT. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT (SMC), JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF LALLU RAM SAINI VS. JCIT (SUPRA) AND ALSO I N VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR OF TH E ASSESSEE NAMELY:- ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016 SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPU R 18 1. M/S. SHREEPATI DEVELOPER & BUILDER LTD. VS. ADDL. C IT (2015) 65 (II) ITCL PAGE 423 (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL) . 2. CIT VS. YASUNDARA DEVI 2015 66 (II) ITCL PAGE 578 (CHENNAI TRIB UNAL ) 3. CIT VS. AJANTA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS 2003 - 264 - ITR - PAGE 505 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT) 4. SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. C IT 2016 TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 VISHAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL I DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 95,000/- U/S 271E OF THE ACT SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5.0 IN THE RESULT, THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /0 1/2017 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 /01/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJENDRA MEENA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1006/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR