Vivekanand Sadanand Gavhane, Solapur V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range - 2, Solapur

ITA 1214/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0212 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM ITA No. 1214/PUN/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Vivekanand S. Gavhane,C/o. Ruturaj Lodge, Opp. Bus Stand Barshi 413 401 DIST. SOLAPUR PAN; AJLPG 1591 J : Appellant Vs. The Jt. C.I.T. Range 2, Solapur : Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Respondent by : Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is against the CIT(A)- 7, Pune’s order dated 13-04-2018 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-7/R-2/10625/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. Heard both the department. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action imposing u/s 271D penalty of Rs. 2,55,000/- for having received loans in cash from his mother Smt. Kumudini Gavhane thereby violating section 269SS of the Act. 3. Both the learned lower authorities vehemently reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty. The Revenue more particularly contended that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) hold the assessee to have failed in giving justifiable explanation for having violated the relevant statutory provision involving the receipt of cash loan u/s 269SS of the Act. Mr. Walimbe further sought to highlight the fact that the assessee and his mother maintained their respective bank accounts in the same bank’s branch only which duly support’s learned lower authorities’ stand. 2 ITA No.1214/PUN/2018 Vivekanand S. Gavhane A.Y. 2013-14 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to foregoing rival contentions and find merit in assessee’s stand. It is made clear that there is no dispute about the impugned cash loans having obtained from assessee’s mother only. That being the case, various judicial precedents (2022) 137 taxmann.com 395 (Del), Baloo Vs. Dy. CIT (2011) 16 taxmann.com 35 (Cal), CIT vs. Baloj Truees (2008) 167 taxman 27 (Mad) C.I.T. Vs. Laxmi Trust Co. 303 ITR 99 (Mad) held that such a penalty involving cash loans from family members to meet with business exigencies is not sustainable as it should not be held that the same violated the basic tenor of sec. 269SS of the Act. Faced with this situation, we delete the impugned penalty on account of overwhelming genuineness involving facts of the instant case. The assessee succeeds in his instant sole grievance. 5. The assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 th day of July 2022. Sd/- sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated, this 27 th day of July 2022 Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (A) 7, Pune 4. The PCIT 6 Pune. 5. The D.R. ITAT A’ Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. /// TRUE COPY /// 3 ITA No.1214/PUN/2018 Vivekanand S. Gavhane A.Y. 2013-14 Date 1 Draft dictated on 30-06-2022 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 07-07-2022 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 27-07-2022 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of order 27-07-2022 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 27-07-2022 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order