Sri P. Muthukaruppan, CHENNAI V. The Joint CIT, Pondicherry

ITA 225/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77324 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 273B; 133A; 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CH ENNAI . , . !' !' !' !' , # # # # $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.220, 221, 222, 223, 224,225, 226, 227 & 2 28/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 & 2012-13 SRI P. MUTHUKARUPPAN, 38, SUBRAMANIASAMY KOIL STEET, MUTHIAMUDALIAR STREET, MUTHIALPET, PONDICHERRY 605 003. [PAN:AMEPM0832C] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY RANGE, PONDICHERRY. ( %& %& %& %& /APPELLANT ) ( '(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT ) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE '(%& ) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT ) + / DATE OF HEARING : 27.05.2014 ,- ) + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2014 . . . . / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE NINE APPEALS FILED BY SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST DIFFERENT PENALTY ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI, CHENNAI, ALL DATED 23.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271D AND F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13 PAS SED UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI A. KANNA N, PROP. VADAMALAYAN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 2 FINANCE ON 08.10.2011 BY THE ITO, WARD 1(1), PUDUCH ERRY. IT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT SHRI A. KANNAN WAS DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. HE CHOSE TO GIVE LOANS TO ONLY SELECTED G ROUP OF PERSONS. HE GAVE MONIES TO PERSONS AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST FOR TEN MONTHS. THE AMOUNT IS DIVIDED INTO TEN MONTHLY INSTALMENTS. ONCE THE REPA YMENTS OF TEN INSTALMENTS ARE OVER, AGAIN THE SAME PERSONS TOOK F URTHER LOAN. HE CHARGED INTEREST ON THE LOAN AT ONE PERCENT PER MONTH. THE WHOLE TRANSACTION WAS DONE BY CASH ONLY I.E. NO CHEQUES OR DRAFTS CAME IN TO PLAY. THE ITO HAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF BOTH THE SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE LOANS IN CASH EXCEEDI NG ` .20,000/- AND REPAID THE LOAN EXCEEDING ` . 20,000/-. THE DETAILS OF LOANS OBTAINED AND REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09: CASH LOAN: 21.06.2007 15 LAKHS CASH REPAYMENT ` . 15 LAKHS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10: CASH LOAN: 23.04.2008 20 LAKHS CASH REPAYMENT ` . 20 LAKHS 07.03.2009 20 LAKHS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11: CASH LOAN: 09.01.2010 20 LAKHS CASH REPAYMENT ` . 20 LAKHS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 CASH LOAN: 03.11.2010 20 LAKHS CASH REPAYMENT ` . 23 LAKHS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 CASH REPAYMENT ` . 13 LAKHS THE ITO HAS REFERRED THIS CASE TO THE JCIT, PUDUCH ERRY AND CONSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE REFERENCE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1 6.12.2011 WERE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 3 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271D & 271E OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 16.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 11.01.2012 AND SOU GHT ADJOURNMENT. ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 01.02.2012 WAS ALSO ISSUED AN D SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 06.02.2012. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 16.02.2012 SOUGHT A DJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND STATED THAT A CLOSE ASSOCIATE, SENIOR CITIZEN OF MY COMMUNITY AND MY MENTOR IN BUSINESS PASSED AWAY THIS MORNING. HENCE, I REQUEST YOU TO GRANT ME A WEEKS TIME AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.02.2012. THEREAFTER, A FRESH NOTICE DATED 16.02.2012 WERE S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 17.02.2012. NONE APPEARED IN RESPONSE T O THE NOTICE SERVED. FURTHER NOTICE DATED 24.02.2012 WERE ISSUED AND SE RVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 24.02.2012. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATI VE M/S. GANESAN AND CO. C.AS FILED ADJOURNMENT LETTER DATED 23.02.2 012 ANOTHER LETTER DATED 05.03.2012 WAS FILED BY THE A SSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 06.03.2012 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 15.03.2012. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 4 THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 17.04.2012 WAS IS SUED POSTING THE CASE ON 27.04.2012 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19.04.2 012. ON 27.04.2012, SHRI V. JAYACHANDER, C.A. ATTENDED AND FILED ADJOURNMENT LETTER. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE DATED 02.05.2012 WAS ISSUED CALLING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS SUCH AS ACTUAL DATES OF LO ANS TAKEN, ACTUAL DATES OF REPAYMENT ALONG WITH AMOUNT, MODE OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT, AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID, DATES AND MODE OF PAYMENT, BANK A CCOUNT DETAILS, TRAIL OF EACH TRANSACTION, RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT IN BANK ISS UE OF CHEQUES DEPOSIT IN FIRM REASONABLE CAUSE. ON 11.05.2012, SHRI V. JAYACHANDER, CA ATTENDED AN D HE WAS FURTHER ASKED ADJOURNMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 11.05.2012 TO PROVE REASONABLE CAUSE BY FILING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF EACH TRANSACTION. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.05.2012. NONE APPEARE D ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REPLY NOR H AS FILED THE PARTICULARS CALLED FOR VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 11.05.2012 AND LETTER DATED 02.05.2012. 3. THUS, IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS OBSERVED THAT IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WA NT TO SAY ANYTHING IN THE MATTER AND THE FACTS ARE NOT CONTESTED OR DISPU TED BY HIM. HE ALSO GAVE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 5 A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACC EPTING LOANS IN CASH AND SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY VIOL ATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PENALTY ATTRACTS UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE AC T AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 D OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON SEVERAL DATES REPEATEDL Y FROM 01.04.2013 TO 25.11.2013. 1 ST NOTICE OF HEARING WAS FIXED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) ON 30.04.2013 AND ANOTHER FIVE HEARING NOTICES WERE IS SUED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FIXING HEARING ON 05.08.2013, 10.09.20 13, 09.10.2013, 19.11.2013 AND 17.12.2013. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 07.08.2013, SHRI JAYACHANDER, C.A. ATT ENDED AND SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE, WHICH WAS FIXED ON 13.08.2 013 TO FILE FURTHER DETAILS. EVEN ON THIS DATE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ATTEND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON EX-PARTE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PASSING A DETAILED ORDER, WHICH IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER: 5. DECISION AND GROUNDS OF DETERMINATION: IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AL ONG WITH THE FORM NO.35, IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT H AD OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON 21.06.2007 BY CASH. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOAN BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE LENDER IN CASH WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOAN BY THE APPEL LANT WAS ALSO IN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 6 POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CALLED FOR SEVERAL DETAILS FROM THE APPELLANT INCLUDING BANK A CCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, THE REASONABLE CAUSE, IF ANY, FOR ACCEPT ANCE OF THE CASH LOAN ETC. VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 02.05.2012 AND 11.05.201 2. BUT, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO THE LETTERS DATED 02.05.2012 & 11.05.2012. THE APPEL1ANT HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.26 9SS OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE IT ACT FOR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT. NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED, BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS OF THE IT ACT. THE BURDEN IS ENTIRELY UPON THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY THE CASH LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM THE LENDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BU RDEN CAST UPON HIM FOR CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT IN ORDER TO NOT TO LEVY PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 27 1D OF THE IT ACT. EVEN GENUINE TRANSACTIONS ARE COVERED UNDER THE AMB IT OF SEC.269SS OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT COVERS ON LY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT. ALL THE TRANSA CTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE TAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OR EVEN FOR PERSONAL PUR POSE ARE COVERED U/S 269SS OF THE IT ACT. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALL GENUINE AND BONAFIDE AND THE A PPELLANT COULD NOT GET LOAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS THE LENDER INS ISTED ON TRANSACTION IN CASH ARE NOT DRAWN OUT FROM ANY RECORDS OF THE A PPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT NEVER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER INSPITE OF REPEATED NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM IN THE CO URSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE TH AT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE. EVEN THE GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTIONS ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF TH E IT ACT. THE INSISTENCE OF THE LENDER ON TRANSACTING OF THE LOAN IN CASH CANNOT BE TREATED AS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR VIOLATION OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE RE PEATED ACTS OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOAN IN CASH ON THE INSISTENCE OF THE LENDER AMOUNTS TO ACTIVE PROMOTION OF THE VIOLATION OF SEC.269SS O F THE IT ACT BY THE APPELLANT. I AM ALSO CONVINCED THAT THE APPELLANT H AS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOAN IN CASH IN CONTRAV ENTION OF THE SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE RATIO OF THE VAR IOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS RELIED UPON BY THE AO WHILE LEVYING PENALTY ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED. UNDER THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT JOINT COMMISSIONER OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 7 INCOME TAX HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271D OF T HE IT ACT OF RS.15,00,000/-. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED TH AT SINCE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED ORDER EX-PARTE, ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). ALTERNATIVELY, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SURVEY WAS CON DUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI A. KANNAN, WHO IS DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS . BASED ON THE MATERIAL COLLECTED FROM SHRI KANNAN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269 T OF THE ACT AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE JCIT, PUDUCHERRY. NO SUCH MATERIA L WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. LAKSHMI TRUST CO. REPORTED IN 303 ITR 99 (MAD). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT AND NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BEFORE EITHER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BOTH THE AU THORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN AS MANY AS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE THEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THOSE OPPORT UNITIES GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND T HEREFORE, THE LD. DR HAS PRAYED THAT THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AGAIN. FURTHER, HE HAS RELIED ON THE D ECISIONS OF THE HONBLE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 8 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KASI CONSU LTANT CORPORATION 311 ITR 419 (MAD) AND IN THE CASE OF P. BASKAR V. CIT 340 I TR 560. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE P ENALTY ORDER, THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED ` .15.00 LAKHS IN CASH AND REPAID ` . 15.00 LAKHS IN CASH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9. AGAIN HE BORROWED ` .20 LAKHS ON TWO OCCASIONS AND REPAID ` .24 LAKHS IN CASH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11, AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE BORROWED ` .20 LAKHS AND REPAID IN CASH. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12, HE BORROWED ` . 20 LAKHS AND REPAID ` . 23 LAKHS. FURTHER, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID ` .13 LAKHS IN CASH. THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HA S NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OR EVEN BEFORE US. HE IS NOT IN A POSI TION TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING LOANS IN CASH AND RE PAID THE SAME IN CASH. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT HE HAS GIVEN AS MANY AS NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THOSE OPPORTUNITIES A ND HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR A CCEPTING AND REPAYING MONIES IN CASH, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 9 IN A POSITION TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THEREFORE, HE HAS A VOIDED TO ATTEND BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. NOW, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS REQUESTING TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WHIC H APPEARS TO BE NOT FAIR, JUST AND PROPER. ONCE THE ASSESSEES INTENTION IS C LEAR THAT HE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS NOT JUST IFIED FOR US TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, TH E REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. THE ONLY ARGU MENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS ARGUMENT WAS NO T PRESSED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ). HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE MATERIAL FACT OF ACCEPTING LOANS IN CASH AND RE PAYING THE LOANS IN CASH. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED LOANS IN CASH EXCEEDING ` .20,000/- AND REPAID IT IN CASH, IF THIS FACTUAL PO SITION IS CORRECT, THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS U NDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE LOANS AND REPAID THE LOANS IN CASH AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T. OTHER MAT ERIALS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL IN TH E CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE HAS BORROWED LOANS IN CASH AND REP AID IN CASH EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT( APPEALS). EVEN BEFORE US, I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 10 NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE CASE OF P. BASKAR V. CIT (SUPRA), THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: A PERUSAL OF S. 271D SHOWS THAT ON ANY VIOLATION O F THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS AND THE ASSESSEE TAKING A LOAN BY CASH, PE NALTY EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN SO TAKEN OR ACCEPTED AND WOULD BE LEVIABLE UNDER S. 271D. HOWEVER, S. 273B STATES THAT UNDER S . 271D, PENALTY WOULD NOT BE LEVIABLE ONLY IF AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE SHOWS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ANY SUCH FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISI ONS OF S. 269SS. APPLYING S. 273B TO THE CASE, EXCEPT FOR MERE STATE MENT THAT THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT IN CASH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS EX IGENCY AND TO MEET THE LIQUIDITY, THERE IS HARDLY ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THERE WAS A REAL EXIGENCY THAT COMPELLED THE ASSESSEE TO GO F OR CASH LOAN. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE MATERIALS AND POINTED OUT T HAT EVEN TAKING LOAN FOR SHORT-TERM, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIA TED THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING TAKING CASH, IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS BUSINESS EXIGENCY FOR TAKING LOAN AMOUNT AS CASH, THE QUESTION OF CONDONING THE VIOLATION AS SU CH FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 271D R/W S. 273B DOES NOT ARISE. TRIBUNAL FOUND, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY REASONABLE CAUS E FOR TAKING CASH LOAN. AS REGARDS THE FIRST OF THE ITEM OF RS. 85,00 0 AS REPRESENTING AN OPENING BALANCE, EXCEPT FOR A MERE STATEMENT, THERE ARE HARDLY ANY MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS AN OPENI NG BALANCE. CONSIDERING THE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS ON TAKING CA SH LOAN FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LE VY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271D. EXCEPT FOR MERE STATEMENT THAT THE RECEIPT OF AMOUN T IN CASH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND TO MEET THE LI QUIDITY, THERE IS HARDLY ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THERE WAS A REAL EXIGENCY THAT COMPELLED THE ASSESSEE TO GO FOR CASH LOAN AND TRIB UNAL WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271D. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 11 10. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF KASI CONSULTANT CORPORA TION V. CIT (SUPRA), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CONSIDERED SI MILAR ISSUE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM PUBLIC IN VIOLATION OF SECTI ON 269SS, THERE BEING NO MATERIAL TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D WHILE REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETIN G THE PENALTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON TO SHOW THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HIM TO OBTAIN LOAN IN CASH AND REPAID THE SAME IN CASH. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED HUGE AMOUNT IN CASH AND REPAID THE SAME IN CASH AND NO REASONS WERE EXPLAIN ED. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SQUARELY APPL IES TO THE CASE IN HAND. 11. IN SO FAR AS THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. LAKSHMI TRUST CO. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONAFIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAX PAYER COULD NOT GET THE LOA NS OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DD FOR SOME BONAFIDE REASONS, THE AUTHORITIES VESTED WITH THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS THE DISCRETION NOT TO LEVY PENALTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED, ANY R EASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ACCEPT AND REPAY THE LOANS IN CASH. THEREFORE, T HE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.220 220220 220- -- -228 228228 228/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 12 THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN SO FAR AS OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCER NED, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES ARE SIMILAR. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT FOR THE RECEIVIN G AMOUNTS MORE THAN ` .20,000/- IN CASH AND REPAYING MORE THAN ` .20,000/- IN CASH AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION S AND DECISION, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 29 TH OF MAY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 29.05.2014 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.