Shri Deepakbhai C. Parikh, Vadodara, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(5), Vadodara,

ITA 2000/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7100 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( CONVENED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2000/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI DEEPAKBHAI C. PARIKH B-1, VIDYA VIHAR SOCIETY, NEW SAMA ROAD, VADODARA 390 002 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(1)(5), BARODA 390 007 ./ . / PAN/GIR NO. : ABFPP5284R ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL R. SHAH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIDHYUT TRIVEDI, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 07/09/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/09/2020 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, VADODARA (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 31 .03.2014 ARISING IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 06.06.2017 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 2000/AHD/18 [SHRI DEEPAKBHAI C. PARIKH VS. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY. 2011-12. 2. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL CONCERNS PENALTY OF RS.90, 000/- UNDER S. 271D OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE COMMITTED UN DER S.269SS OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE . THE AO IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED LOANS IN CASH OF RS.90,000/- IN AGGREGATE FROM THRE E PERSONS, NAMELY, CHANDRAKANT T PARIKH, BANSIBHAI T. PARIKH & SANDIPBHAI B. PARIKH RS.30,000/- EACH. IN DEFENSE, IT IS THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS BUILDING A NEW HOUSE WHICH WAS QUITE OL D AND ABOVE 50 YEARS OF AGE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, HE WAS NOT IN P OSITION TO AVAIL LOANS FROM BANKING CHANNELS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND HE NCE AVAILED LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVE, THE DETAILS OF WHI CH WERE DULY FURNISHED. THE LENDERS ARE RETIRED/GOVERNMENT EMPL OYEES WORKING AS TEACHERS ETC. AND EARNING SALARY INCOME/PENSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT F RAMED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT, THE IMPUGNED LOANS HAVE BEEN A CCEPTED AS GENUINE AND NO ADDITION THEREON HAS BEEN MADE UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2894/AHD/2017 ORDER DATED 27/08/2019. HAVIN G REGARD TO THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ITA NO. 2000/AHD/18 [SHRI DEEPAKBHAI C. PARIKH VS. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - PLAUSIBILITY OF EXPLANATION, WE FIND THAT REASONABL E CAUSE EXISTS FOR EXONERATING THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY IMPOSED AMOU NTING TO RS.90,000/- IS THEREFORE DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 08/09/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 08/09/2020