Manisha Prakash Amin, Howrah V. JCIT, Range - 48, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1839/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48163 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE , /AND , . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SHR I C. D. RAO, AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 1839/KOL/2010 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 MANISHA PRAKASH AMIN (PAN-AFFPA 2941 G) ()* /APPELLANT ) VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-48, KOLKATA. (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P. K. MISHRA !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM/ , : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 27/CIT(A)-XXX/WARD-48(2)/2009-10 DATED 2 7.05.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-48(2), KOLKATA U/S.143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 15.12.2008. PENALTY IN DISPUTE WAS LEVIED BY JCIT, RANGE-48, KOLKATA U/S. 271D OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 13.04.2009. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY JCIT, RANGE-48, K OLKATA U/S. 271D OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.2,70, 000/- IMPOSED BY THE JCIT U/S. 271D. 3. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1,90,000/- FROM SMT. GITA BEN D AMIN AND A SUM O F RS.80,000/- FROM SRI NARAYAN BHAI J AMIN RESPECTIVELY IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 269SS FOR ACCEPTING CASH ITA NO.1839/K/2010 MANISHA PRAKASH AMIN A.Y 2006-07 2 EXCEEDING RS.20,000/-. ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER TO JCIT, RANGE-48, KOLKATA FOR LEVYING PENALTY VIDE REFERENCE NO.WD.-4 8(2)/KOL/PENALTY/AFFPA2941G/08- 09/1772 DATED 27.2.09. THE JCIT, RANGE 48, KOLKATA LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS FOR RECEIVING LOAN IN C ASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE LEVIED PENALTY FOR A SUM OF RS.2,70 LACS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO IN APPEAL, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEING FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED L OANS FROM SMT. GITA BEN D AMIN A SUM OF RS.1,90,000/- IN CASH, WHO IS SISTER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.90,000/- FROM SRI NARAYAN BHAI J AMIN IN CASH, WHO IS FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THESE CASH LOANS FROM RELATIVES, WHO HAD ADVANCED CASH AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM BANK. THIS FACT IS NARRATED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY HER AND THE PENALTY ORDER. IT HAS BE EN STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT BOTH THE PERSONS, THE APPELLANT AND HER SISTER IN LAW, NAMELY MRS. GITA BEN D AMIN WHO HAD ADVANCED LOAN OF RS. 1,90,000/- HAVE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IN CORPORATION BANK HOWRAH. MRS. GITA BEN D AMIN WITHDREW RS. 1,90,000/- ON 1-10-05 THROUGH SELF CHEQUE FROM HER SB A/C. NO. 2813 IS CORPORATION BANK, HOWRAH AND GAVE IT TO THE APPELLA NT WHO ON THE SAME DATE DEPOSITED RS.80,000/- IN HER ACCOUNT AT THE SA ME BANK AND KEPT THE BALANCE WITH HER SO AS TO BE DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER,2005. ONE THING IS NOT UNDERS TOOD HERE AS TO WHY MRS. GITA BEN D AMIN WOULD NOT GIVE THE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH CHEQUE WHEN BOTH OF THEM HERE HAVING ACCOUNT IN THE SAME BANK. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT WOULD DEPOSIT RS . 80,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF LOAN OF RS. 1,90,000/- AND WHY THE A PPELLANT WOULD KEEP THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,10,000/- WITH HER SO AS TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER,2005 AFTER A LAPSE O F TWO MONTHS. THE APPELLANTS STATEMENT THAT CASH TRANSACTIONS HAVE O CCURRED DUE TO IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AT ALL CONVINCING. IT IS ALSO NOT CON VINCING AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT WOULD KEEP RS.1,10,000/- WITH HER FOR ARO UND TWO MONTH AND FINALLY DEPOSITED THE LOAN AMOUNT TO HER BANK ACCOU NT AFTER A LAPSE OF ALMOST 2 MONTHS. LOAN IS USUALLY TAKEN WHEN THE PERSON IS IN NEED OF MONEY. WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN CASH LOAN FROM HER SISTER I N LAW, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE DEPOSITED THE CASH LOAN IN HER BANK ACCOUNT EITHER ON THE SAME DATE OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME LIMIT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REA SON AS TO WHY THE CASH LOAN WOULD BE KEPT IDLE WITH THE APPELLANT FOR A PE RIOD OF MORE THAN TWO MONTHS. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT CASH T RANSACTIONS IN THESE TWO CASES WERE BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT ACCEP TABLE. ITA NO.1839/K/2010 MANISHA PRAKASH AMIN A.Y 2006-07 3 5. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD RECEIVED LOANS IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- FROM RELATIVES AS NARRATED AB OVE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT BOTH SMT. GITA BEN D. AMIN AND SHRI NARAYAN BHAI J AMIN HAD W ITHDRAWN THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS FROM THEIR SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS AND AFTER W ITHDRAWAL FROM SELF CHEQUE THE SAME WAS ADVANCED, NO DOUBT IT IS AFTER TWO MONTHS OR THREE MONTHS BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RECEIVED THIS LOAN IN CASH FROM RELATIVES AND TRANSACTION BETWEEN RELATIVES IS NOT IN THE CHARACTER OF LOANS OR DEPOSIT ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE A CT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOANS FROM RELATIVES ARE IN THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL SUPPO RT WITHIN THE FAMILY AND THIS IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FALLING U/S. 273B OF THE ACT. ACC ORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY JCIT AND REVERSE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . ., ,, , !' , , , , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED : 24 TH MAY, 2011 /0 $12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) !- 4 +5 6!5&7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* /APPELLANT - MANISHA PRAKASH AMIN, 46, DOBSON ROA D, KUSH APARTMENT, HOWRAH-711101 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT JCIT, RANGE-48, KOLKATA. 3 . -$ / THE CIT, KOLKATA 4 . -$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5 . >? +$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,5 +/ TRUE COPY, !-$@/ BY ORDER, 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .