Mrs. Deepali Mandar Joshi, Pune V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2091/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0975 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KULKARNI
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Avoidance of tax; Tax effect
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MRS. DEEPALI MANDAR JOSHI, S.NO.95/1/1, LANDAGE NAGAR, PUNE NASHIK ROAD, BHOSARI, PUNE -411 039 PAN :AGUPJ4849A . / APPELLANT V/S ADDL.CIT , RANGE - 8, PUNE . /RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L. KULKARNI / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 27-06-2014 OF THE C IT-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN ITA NO.2091/PN/2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.2,3 5,000/- U/S.271E OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2092/PN/2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY OF RS.1,75,000/- U/S.271D OF THE ACT. / DATE OF HEARING :31.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:31.08.2016 2 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 69 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEALS FOR WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXP LAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERIOUSLY ILL AND WAS UNDER MEDICAL EXAMINATION FOR ENTE RCOLITES AND COMPLAINTS OF ABDOMINAL PAIN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS S UFFERING FROM SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS THE APPEALS WERE FILED LATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS IS NOT DELIBERATE AND THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. R ELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS SHOULD BE CONDONED. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL. THE AO MADE A REFERENCE IN HIS LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADDL.CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, TH E ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED LOANS/ADVANCES OF RS.45,000/- FROM SMT. APAR NA A. JOSHI AND RS.1,30,000/- FROM SMT. MANDAR A. JOSHI IN CASH A ND HAS VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS. SIMILARLY, THE ASS ESSEE HAD REPAID A SUM OF RS.2,35,000/- IN CASH TO SMT. APARNA A. JOSHI AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDL.CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 06-0 1-2010 3 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 U/S.271D AND 271E OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE WITH HER CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS NAMELY HUSBAND AND MOTHER -IN-LAW AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE LOANS AND AD VANCES GIVEN AND TAKEN BY HER WITH THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE COVERED U /S.269SS AND 269T OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED THE PROOF AND IDENTITY OF THE FAMILY MEMB ERS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AND HENCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DROPPED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R IN HER WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATED THAT THESE PAYMENTS AND REPAYMENTS WERE NEITHER THE LOANS NOR ADVANCES BUT THESE WERE DEBTS. 6. HOWEVER, THE ADDL.CIT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARG UMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,75,000 /- U/S.271D AND RS.2,35,000/- U/S.271E OF THE ACT BY OBSER VING AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WH I CH IS MADE T H R OUGH HER C.A. IT IS WE LL SETTLED LAW THAT THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS SHOULD BE A CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE I N THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING BANK A/C . AND . ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS WITH WHOM T HE ASSESSEE MADE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALSO HAVING THE BANK A/C . AND HENCE IT WAS I N THE WELL CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE T RANSACTIONS BY THE A/C . PAYEE CHEQUES . IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT THE IGNORANCE OF PROVISIONS OF ANY LAW CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS BEING ASSESSED FOR THE INCOME TAX FOR LAST SEV ERAL YEARS AND SHE IS BEING REPRESENTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT AND HENCE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE , THAT SHE WAS UNDER THE WRONG I MPRESS I ON THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE FAM I LY MEMBERS ARE NO T COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE INCOME TA X ACT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE . FURTHER, SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE INCOME TAX A CT DO NOT EXCLUDE THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BETWEEN THE FAMILY MEMBERS . IT I S ALSO SE TTL ED THAT THE ACCEPTANCE AND PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT W I L L E I THER BE A LOAN O R ADVANCE . I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT A DEBT IS NOT A LOAN OR ADVANCE . THUS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT ALL. 4 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H I GH COURT IN THE CASE OF DHANJI R . ZALTE VS . ACIT (2004 ) 265 ITR 204 HELD THAT THE PENALTY U/S . 271D AND 271E A R E LEVIABLE I F THE R E I S CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T. I N THIS JUDGEMENT , THE CASE DEC I DED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ASSTT . DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION VS . KUM . A.B. SHANTI (2002) 174 CTR 513 (SC) WAS ALSO DISCUSSED . THIS JU DGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE SUPREME IN (2003) 264 ITR (ST.) 140 SC . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION I IMPOSE A PE NALTY OF RS.1,75,000/- (45,000 + 1,30,000) U/S.271D AND RS.2,35 ,000/- U/S. 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN ACCORDINGLY. 7. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALT Y UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISIONS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS/269T WERE INTRODUCED WITH A V IEW TO COUNTER THE EVASION OF TAX. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE GE NUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF LOAN AND REPAYMENT THEREOF HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCEP TING SUCH CASH LOANS FROM CLOSE RELATIVES, I.E. HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ADDL.CIT SHOULD BE DELETED. 8. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE PE NALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S.271D THE LD.CIT (A) AT PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AP PELLANT HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS ON THE SAME ISSUE BUT HAS FILED GENERAL SUBMISSION . IN ABSENCE OF GROUNDWISE SUBMISSIONS, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO ADJUD ICATE THE GROUNDS. HOWEVER, GROUND NO.1 IS BEING ADJUDICATED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF FACTS AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APP ELLANT. IN STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT F AMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT HAD HELPED HER IN SETTING UP OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND SINCE AT THE TIME OF RAISING BORROWED FUNDS, THE BANKS AND F INANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ASK FOR THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF OWN F UNDS, THE FAMILY 5 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 MEMBERS PROVIDED THE APPELLANT THE REQUIRED FUND FOR STARTING AND SETTING UP OF BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMS THAT SI NCE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE, PENALTY U/S. 271D OF INCOME -TAX ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE 3 RD MEMBER DECISION OF HON'BLE VISHAKHAPATTANAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. WINMAN FINANCE AND LEASING LTD. 115 I TD 115, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE TRANSACTI ON IS GENUINE IT CANNOT BE TAKEN OUT OF THE AMBIT OF SEC. 271E OF IN COME-TAX ACT. THIS BEING SO I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE, PENALTY U/S. 271D OF INCOME-TAX ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED. IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE F ACTS AND ALSO HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT REASONABLE CAUSE FOR TAKING AN D REPAYING CASH LOANS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE(I) LTD.(2012) 345 ITR 270 (BO M). FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE RELIANCE OF T HE APPELLANT ON THE SAID ORDER IS MISPLACED AS THAT DECISION WAS GIVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF PAYMENT AND ADJUSTMENT THROUGH JOURNAL ENTRY AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT. THEREFORE FACTS BEING DISTINGUISHABLE, TH E APPELLANT CANNOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM THIS DECISION. THE APP ELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. YESHODHA, 55(1) ITCL 391. IN THIS REGARD ALSO, I T IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THERE WAS URG ENT NECESSITY TO BORROW THE AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PENALTY OF RS.1,75,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S. 271D OF INCOME-TAX ACT IS UPHELD. THUS, THE GROUND IS DISMISSE D. 8.1 IDENTICAL OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A ) WHILE UPHOLDING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271E OF THE ACT. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : GROUNDS IN ITA NO.2092/PN/2014 : WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LD. CIT(A)-V WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.1,75,000/- BY THE A. O. UNDER S. 271-D OF THE ACT . THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS A 'REASONABLE TRANSACTION' THE GENUINITY OF WHICH WAS NO T IN DOUBT. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT OF THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID OR EVADE ANY TAX . THE PENALTY LEVIED BY A. O. AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEG AL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE PENALTY BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CON VERSANT WITH COMPLEX PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT, 1961. THIS HON'BL E TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN CONSCIOUS DECISION SO CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPEATED SUCH VIOLATION IN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND IF IT IS THE FIRST AND THE ONLY VIO LATION OF S. 269SS 6 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 NO PENALTY U/S 271-D CAN BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THIS THE PENALTY BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL OF 70DAYS BE CONDONED. THE DETAILED APPLICATION WILL BE FILED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.2091/PN/2014 : WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LD. CIT(A)-V WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,35,000/- BY THE A.O. UNDER S. 271-E OF THE ACT. THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS A 'REASONABLE TRANSACTION' THE GENUINITY OF WHICH WAS NO T IN DOUBT. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT OF THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID OR EVADE ANY TAX . THE PENALTY LEVIED BY A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGA L AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE PENALTY BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CON VERSANT WITH COMPLEX PROVISIONS OF I. T. ACT, 1961. THIS HON'B LE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN CONSCIOUS DECISION SO CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPEATED SUCH VIOLATION IN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND IF IT IS THE FIRST AND THE ONLY VIO LATION OF S. 269T NO PENALTY U/S 271-E CAN BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THIS THE PENALTY BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL OF 69 DAYS BE CONDONED . THE DETAILED APPLICATION WILL BE FILED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271D AND 271E BY THE ADDL.CIT AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE GENUINE. THE ASSES SEE DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCY HAS TAKEN THE LOANS IN CASH FROM HER H USBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE TAX ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE PUNJAB 7 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL REPORTED IN 315 ITR 163 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT FAMILY TRANSACTIONS BETWEE N TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES BASED ON AN ACT OF CASUALNESS, SP ECIALLY IN A CASE WHERE THE DISCLOSURE THEREOF IS CONTAINED IN THE COM PILATION OF ACCOUNTS AND WHICH HAS NO TAX EFFECT ESTABLISHES REASONA BLE CAUSE U/S.273B FOR INVOKING THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. 11. REFERRING TO ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORE REPOR TED IN 277 ITR 420 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BON AFIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271E OF THE I.T. ACT. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DEVIDAS RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI VS. JCIT VIDE ITA NO.444/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 29-07-2016 HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271D OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS OF CONTRACTOR, HAD ACCEPTED LOAN OF RS.4,18,000/- IN CASH FROM HIS WIFE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INTENTION OF INT RODUCING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT WAS TO PREVEN T THE ADJUSTMENT OF ENTRIES BY WAY OF CASH LOANS. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAID CASH FROM HIS WIFE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES THERE IS NO MERIT IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DEFAULTE D AND BEING LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271D OF THE I.T. ACT. REFERRI NG TO THE 8 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 3 45 ITR 270 HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING P ARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER : THE EXPRESSION 'REASONABLE CAUSE' USED IN SECTION 273B I S NOT DEFINED UNDER THE ACT. UNLIKE THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' USED IN SECTION 2 49(3), 253(5) AND 260A(2A) OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE EXPRESSION 'REASONABLE CAUSE' IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT . A CAUSE WHICH IS REASONABLE MAY NOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THUS, THE E XPRESSION 'REASONABLE CAUSE' WOULD HAVE WIDER CONNOTATION THAN THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE'. THEREFORE, THE EXPRESSION 'REASONABL E CAUSE' IN SECTION 273B FOR NON - IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271E WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY DEPENDING UPON THE FA CTS OF EACH CASE. 12. SO FAR AS THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE AO IS CONCER NED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 13. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T BY ACCEPTING CASH LOAN AND REPA YING THE SAME ALSO IN CASH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIV EN VALID REASONS WHILE UPHOLDING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ADDL.CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ACCEPTING SUCH CASH LOANS AND REPAYING THE M ALSO IN CASH. 14. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF P. MUTHUKARUPPAN VS. JCIT REPORTED IN 375 ITR 24 3 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISIO N HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED AND REPAID LOAN EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- IN CASH FROM/ TO MONEY LENDER REPEATEDLY, EVE N WHEN 9 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE IN A MAJOR CITY AND OFFERED NO EXP LANATION REGARDING URGENCY OR COMPULSION, LEVY OF PENALTY WAS IN CON SONANCE WITH LAW. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHARAN DASS ASHOK KUMAR VS. C IT REPORTED IN 365 ITR 367 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE FIRM A CCEPTED LOAN IN CASH BUT FAILED TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE CAUSE IN AC CEPTING SAID LOAN OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/BANK DRAFT PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACC EPTING SUCH CASH LOANS AND REPAYING THEREOF IN CASH, THEREFORE, T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER SU BMITTED THAT BOTH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE OF P. MUTHUKARUPPAN V S. JCIT (SUPRA) THERE WAS REPEATED CASH TRANSACTIONS WITH THE MONEY LE NDER THAT TOOK PLACE IN A MAJOR CITY LIKE MADRAS. HOWEVER, IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO REPEATED TRANSACTIO NS WITH ANY MONEY LENDER BUT THERE WAS ONLY ONE TRANSACTION WITH H USBAND AND ONE TRANSACTION WITH THE MOTHER-IN-LAW. SIMILARLY, IN THE CA SE OF CHARAS DASS ASHOK KUMAR (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E STABLISH REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING SUCH CASH LOANS. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED REASONABLE CAUS E. SINCE THE TRANSACTION IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE BETWEEN CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TRANSACT ION WITH FAMILY MEMBERS DO NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS /269T, 10 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE PE NALTY LEVIED BY THE ADDL.CIT. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO, ADDL.CIT AND THE CIT (A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE A LSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ADDL.CIT IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,75,000 /- U/S.271D AND RS.2,35,000/- U/S.271E FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T RESPECTIVELY. WE FIND IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ADDL.CIT IN LE VYING THE PENALTY U/S.271D AND 271E. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE MONEY IN CASH FROM HER HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND HAS REPAID THE SAME IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDE R A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TAKING MONEY IN CASH AND REPAYING THER EOF IN CASH FROM THE HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW IS NOT IN VIOLAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE AU THORITIES AND THEREFORE THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION 273B. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S.271D A ND 271E FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T RESPECTIVELY. 17. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE TRANSACTION S ARE BETWEEN CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTE D LOANS IN CASH FROM HER HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW AND HAS REPAID THE SAME IN CASH. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEE N 11 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 DOUBTED. WE FIND THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING AN IDENTICAL ISSU E HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT SECTION 273B OF THE ACT ENVISAGES A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE AS AGAINST SEC TIONS 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT (WHICH HAVE BEEN SOUGHT TO BE INVOK ED FOR PENALISING THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE). IN THE EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION E NVISAGED IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR AN ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH T HE PROVISIONS ON THE BASIS WHEREOF, PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED UPON HI M. TAKEN TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS CONCERNED, IT IS OPEN TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, TO E STABLISH A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HAVING NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT (IN THE CASE OF I. T. A. NO. 777 O F 2008) AND SECTION 269T OF THE ACT (IN THE CASE OF I. T. A. NO. 778 OF 2008). IF AN ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGES THE AFORESAID OBLIGATIONS, THEN I T IS OPEN TO HIM TO RAISE A CLAIM THAT HE SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM THE CO NSEQUENTIAL PENAL EFFECT. 11. THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE INCOME-TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS BONA F IDE AND NOT AIMED AT AVOIDING ANY TAX LIABILITY. SO FAR AS THE INSTANT ISSUE IS CONCERNED, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ARRIV ED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESULT ED IN THE INFRACTION OF ANY LAW, INASMUCH AS, THE DEFAULT COMM ITTED BY HIM WAS TECHNICAL AND VENIAL IN NATURE. THE INCOME-TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL ALSO EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, INASMUCH AS, THERE WAS NO AVOIDANCE OF TAX OR TAX EVA SION AT THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN CIT V. SAINI MEDICAL STORE [2005] 277 ITR 420 THAT BONA FIDES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD CONSTITUT E A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ARRIVED AT T HE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL TO SHOW REASONAB LE CAUSE. AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL RETURNED A FINDING THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE RETURN OF PAYMENTS RE CEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF CASH, AT THE HANDS OF THE R ESPONDENT- ASSESSEE, OUGHT TO BE OVERLOOKED, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 12. AS AGAINST THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE IN COME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT- REVENUE, THAT ON EIGHT DIFFERENT OCCASION S DIFFERENT AMOUNTS RANGING FROM RS. 10,000 TO 30,000 WERE TAKEN BY WAY OF CASH BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE AS LOANS IN CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE DI SREGARD OF OBLIGATION ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. AND THE AFORESAID LOANS WERE THEN RETURNED BY WAY OF CASH, AGAIN, IN C ONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF THE OBLIGATION ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 269T OF TH E ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-RE VENUE, THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN ARGUED AT THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, THAT ACTION OF 12 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS NOT DELIBERATE, OR THAT, THE SAME WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT HE COULD NOT ACCEPT OR RETURN A LOAN(S) IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000 BY WAY OF CASH. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-REVENUE, THAT THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH BONA FIDES AT THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSE E, SQUARELY RESTS ON THE SHOULDER OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. IN ADDI TION TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON THE ALLEGED BONA FIDE BELIEF, WHICH CANNOT BE ILLUSTRATED THROUGH COGENT EVIDENCE. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE SUBMI SSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-REVENUE, THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ABIDING BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. 13. HAVING GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RIVAL PARTI ES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, IS A FINDING OF FACT. THIS EMERGES FR OM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN SAINI MEDICAL STO RE'S CASE [2005] 277 ITR 420, WHEREIN, THIS COURT HAS, INTER ALIA, HELD A S UNDER (PAGE 425) : AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY ACCEPTED IN THE ASS ESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN IF, THERE IS A NY IGNORANCE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INFRACTION OF LAW, THE DEFAULT IS TEC HNICAL AND VENIAL WHICH DID NOT PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR TAX EVASION WAS INVOLVED. TO MY MIND, BO NAFIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B FOR NOT INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENAL TY IS CANCELLED. THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT IS A FINDING OF FACT BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS SUBST ANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' 14. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN R ECORDING ITS CONCLUSION THAT A ' REASONABLE CAUSE' HAD BEEN SHOWN B Y THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED HIS CASH B OOKS, DEPICTING LOANS TAKEN BY HIM UNILATERALLY BEFORE THE REVENUE. ANOTHER FACT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WAS THAT NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IN THE INSTANT ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEMPT BY THE IMPUGNED ACT TO AVOID ANY TAX LIABILITY. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE A BOUT THE FACT THAT THE INSTANT CASH TRANSACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE WERE W ITH THE SISTER CONCERN AND THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN THE FAMILY AND DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCY. A FAMILY TRANSACTION, BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES, BASED ON AN ACT OF CASUALNESS, SPECI ALLY IN A CASE WHERE THE DISCLOSURE THEREOF IS CONTAINED IN THE COMPI LATION OF ACCOUNTS AND WHICH HAS NO TAX EFFECT, IN OUR VIEW ESTABLISHES ' REASONABLE CAUSE' 13 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. SINCE THE RESPONDENT-A SSESSEE HAD SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED ' REASONABLE CAUSE' UNDER SECTI ON 273B OF THE ACT HE MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR NOT INVOKING THE PENAL PROVISIONS (SECTIONS 271D AND 271E O F THE ACT) AGAINST HIM. 15. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN EITHER OF THE AFORESAID TWO APPEALS, I.E., I. T. A. NOS. 777 AND 778 OF 2008, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID APPEALS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 18. WE FIND THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF SAINI MEDICAL STORE (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSU E HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 10. SECTION 273B OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO PENALT Y IS IMPOSABLE FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISIONS, IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' FOR THE SAID FAILURE. 11. THEREFORE, A COMBINED READING OF THE PROVISIONS O F SECTIONS 271E AND 273B OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION REFERRED THERETO, THE PENALTY FOR ITS VIOLATION SHALL NOT BE I MPOSABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY IN ITS ORDER DATED JANUAR Y 18, 1999, HAD ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO AVOID OR EVADE THE TAX . THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN PARAS. 6 AND 6.1 ARE RELEVANT AND ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : '6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONSPECTUS OF THIS MATTER AND FACTS ON RECORD. NO LOSS OF REVENUE HAS OCCURRED IN TH IS CASE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED . THE APEX COURT IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [1972] 83 ITR 26 HAD LONG AGO SETTLED THE LAW THAT PENALTY IS NOT TO BE ORDINARILY IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY EITHER ACTED DELIB ERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW AND WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIO US OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATI ONS. PENALTY WILL ALSO NOT BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS L AWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO P ERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE P ENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO DO SO, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE T HE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NO T LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 14 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 6.1 AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY A CCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN IF, THERE IS ANY IGNORANCE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INF RACTION OF LAW, THE DEFAULT IS TECHNICAL OR VENIAL WHICH DID NOT PRE JUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR TAX EV ASION WAS INVOLVED. TO MY MIND, BONA FIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE REASONAB LE CAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B FOR NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENAL TY IS CANCELLED.' 13. THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL. 14. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT IS A FINDING OF FACT BASED ON APPRECI ATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 15. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 19. SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE CONCERNED THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AN D NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CAS E OF P. MUTHUKARUPPAN (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271D AND 271E ON THE GROUND THAT AS SESSEE WAS TAKING AND GIVING BACK AMOUNTS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- TO T HE MONEY LENDER THROUGH CASH REPEATEDLY THOUGH ENTIRE TR ANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE IN MAJOR CITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER EXPLAINED AS TO THE URGENCY, COMPULSION OR ANY OTHER IMPORTANT CIRCUMST ANCES FOR BREACH. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CHARAN DASS ASHOK KUMA R (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271D ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY REASONABLE C AUSE IN TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT. 15 ITA NOS.2091 & 2092/PN/2014 20. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN C ASH LOAN FROM HER HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW WHICH HAS BEEN REPAI D IN CASH AND THERE IS NO REPEATED TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSE E HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING SUCH LOANS A ND REPAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE E XPRESSION REASONABLE CAUSE IN SECTION 273B FOR NON IMPOSITION OF P ENALTY U/S.271D AND 271E WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT PENALTY U/S.271D AND 271E ARE NOT IMPOSABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE PENALTY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-08-2016. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ' DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2016. ) *#,! -!/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. THE CIT(A) - V, PUNE THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. $ ''( , ( , / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; 5 . + / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE -. ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ( , / ITAT, PUNE