ACIT, Pondicherry V. M.Sougoumarin, Pondicherry

ITA 263/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7685 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 133A; 131; 263; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO S . 2 62 AND 263/MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S :200 8 - 0 9 AND 2012 - 13 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, D.P. THOTTAM, MUTHIALPET, PUDUCHERY 605 003. VS. SRI M. SOUGOUMARIN, NO. 1 15, MUTHIAH MUDALI STREET, MUTHIALP ET, PONDICHERRY 605 003. [PAN: AAIPS8447D] ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 15 . 0 3 .201 6 / DA TE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 0 3 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V I , CHENNAI , BOTH DATED 14 . 11 .20 1 4 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 0 9 AND 2012 - 13 . THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 RELATES TO DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] A ND FOR THE I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. I.T.A.NO.262/MDS/2015 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 08.09.2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI A. KANNAN, PROP. VADAMALAYAN FINANCE, NO. C - 4, II FLOOR, THIYAGARAJA APARTMENT, FIRST MAIN ROAD, THANTHAI PERIYAR NAGAR, PONDICHERRY 605 005. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED UNDER SECTION 133A(3) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE FINANCE OPERATES FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI A. KANNAN FROM THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THE SURVEY REVEALED THE FOLLOWING FACTS. SHRI A. KANNAN HIMSELF WRITES THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCE. HIS FINANCE IS NOT LICEN SED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES FOR FINANCING ACTIVITIES. HE LENDS MONEY ON PRO - NOTES AND RETURNS THE SAME ON REPAYMENT. HE TAKES THE INTEREST PORTION ON LOAN ON THE DAY OF LENDING AND COLLECTS THE BALANCE IN 10 MONTHLY INSTALMENTS. THIS PERIOD OF COLLECTION MAY B E DELAYED BY LOAN DEBTORS. THE DETAILS OF LOAN DEBTORS ARE ENTERED IN THE PARTY REGISTER CALLED BY NAME 'KISTHI VASOOL LIST BOOK'. THIS BOOK HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AS A SINGLE BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 13.12.1986 TO 22.06.2011 AND CONTAINS THE FULL HISTORY OF FINANCING OF 24 YEARS. THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT BORROWED IS ENTERED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR AND MONTH. THE REPAYMENTS ARE ENTERED AGAINST EACH DEBTOR IN THE RESPECTIVE DATES AGAINST HIS NAME. A RECEIPT BOOK IS MAINTAINED FOR ISSUING OUT RECEIPTS TOWA RD REPAYMENTS. BUT THESE RECEIPTS I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 3 ARE NOT MADE OUT FOR ALL THE PERSONS AND ALL REPAYMENTS AND THUS ARE SELECTIVE. THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR APPEARS IN THIS RECEIPT BOOK, IF ENTERED. THE DAY BOOK MAINTAINED FROM 16.06.1993 TO 05.09.2011 IS ONE SINGLE BOOK FOR ENTERING THE REPAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM DEBTORS. THE NAME OF THE DEBTORS INVARIABLY FIND PLACE IN THIS BOOK. THESE RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED IN THE HANDWRITING OF SHRI A. KANNAN AND USED FOR MULTIPLE YEARS. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID LOAN OF .20,00,000/ - IN CASH TO SRI A. KANNAN, THE PROP. OF M/S. VADAMALAYAN FINANCE ON VARIOUS DATES. 3. THUS, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271E R.W.S. 269T OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 02.12.2012. BY RELYING VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DENIED HAVING TAKEN AND REPAID LOAN IN CASH. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID THE LOAN TAKEN IN MANY INSTALMENTS WITH AN INTENTIONAL MOTIVE TO DISHONOUR THE LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LOANS TAKEN AND ITS REPAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR FIRM, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS PARTNER AND EVEN IF SO RECORDED NO BUSINESS EXIGENCY AND URGENCY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO FOLLOW A PROLONGED AND PERSISTENT SYSTEM OF ACCEPTING AND I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 4 REPAYING LOANS IN CASH ONLY. THEREFORE, BY RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A REASONABLE CAUSE CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT TO THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY LEVIED PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF THE SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN REPAID UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT OF .20,00,000/ - . 4 . ON APPEAL , AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1905, 1906, 1907 & 1 908(MDS)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13 DATED 31.10.2013, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. 5 . A GGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI P. MUTHUKARUPPAN V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NOS. 220 TO 228/MDS/2014 DATED 29.05.2014 AS WELL AS DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P. MUTHUKARUPPAN V. JCIT [2015] 375 ITR 243 AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN I.T.A NOS.1905 TO I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 5 1908/MDS/2013 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE PASSED UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE PENALTY ORDER, THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE BORROWED .20.00 LAKHS IN CASH AND REPAID . 20.00 LAKHS IN CASH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ON MANY OCCASIONS. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF .20.00 LAKHS IN CASH THAT THE REPAYMENTS WERE AT THE INSTANT OF THE LENDERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BORROWINGS ARE FROM GENUINE LENDERS AND THEY ARE NOT UNACCOUNTED MONEY. IF IT IS NOT UNACCOUNTED MONEY, IT SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED AND THE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AND REPAID THE LOANS IN CASH AND THE SAID VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 TO 2012 - 13. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NOT ONLY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, BUT MANY PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN AND REPAID LOAN S TO FINANCIER IN CASH BY VIOLATING THE LAW, INCLUDING ASSESSEE S FATHER SHRI P. MUTHUKARUPPAN V. JCIT AND AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY, IN HIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS.220, 221, 222, 223, 224,225, 226, 227 & 228/MDS/2014 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 6 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.05.2014 HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER: 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE PENALTY 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 - 09. AGAIN HE BORROWED .20 LAKHS ON TWO OCCASIONS AND REPAID .24 LAKHS IN CASH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE BORROWED .20 LAKHS AND REPAID IN CASH. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 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 HAS NOT GI VEN ANY EXPLANATION NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OR EVEN BEFORE US. HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING LOANS IN CASH AND REPAID THE SAME IN CASH. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS GIVEN AS MANY AS NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AND HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR ACCEPTING AN D 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 IN A POSITION TO GI VE ANY EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THEREFORE, HE HAS AVOIDED 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) , WHICH APPEARS TO BE NOT FAIR, JUST AND PROPER. ONCE THE ASSESSEE S INTENTION IS CLEAR THAT HE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR US TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE REQUEST OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. THE ONLY ARGUMENT 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 NOT PRESSED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BE FORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE MATERIAL FACT OF ACCEPTING LOANS IN CASH AND REPAYING 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 C ASH EXCEEDING .20,000/ - AND REPAID IT IN CASH, IF THIS FACTUAL POSITION IS CORRECT, THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE LOANS AND REPAID THE LOANS IN CASH AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTIONS 269SS A ND 269T. OTHER MATERIALS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE HAS BORROWED LOANS IN CASH AND REPAID IN CASH EITHER BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). EVEN BEFORE US, NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN. I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 7 UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE CASE OF P. BASKAR V. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: A PERUSAL OF S. 271D SHOWS THAT ON ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS AND THE ASSESSEE TAKING A LOAN BY CASH, PENALTY EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN SO TAKEN OR AC CEPTED 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 PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS. APPLYING S. 273B TO T HE CASE, EXCEPT FOR MERE STATEMENT THAT THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT IN CASH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY 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 FOR CASH LOAN. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE MATERIALS AND POINTED OUT THAT EVEN TAKING LOAN FOR SHORT - TERM, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING TAKING CASH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS BUSINESS EXIGENCY FOR T AKING LOAN AMOUNT AS CASH, THE QUESTION OF CONDONING THE VIOLATION AS SUCH 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 CAUSE FOR TAKING CASH LOAN. AS REGARDS THE FIRST OF THE ITEM OF RS. 85,000 AS REPRESENTING AN OPENING BALANCE, EXCEPT FOR A MERE STATEMENT, THERE ARE HARDLY ANY MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS AN OPENING BALANCE. CONSIDERING THE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS ON TAKING CASH LOAN FROM VARIOUS PA RTIES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271D. EXCEPT FOR MERE STATEMENT THAT THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT IN CASH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY A ND 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 FOR CASH LOAN AND TRIBUNAL WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271D. 10. FURTHER , IN THE CASE OF KASI CONSULTANT CORPORATION V. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CONSIDERED SIMILAR ISSUE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM PUBLIC IN VIOLAT ION OF SECTION 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) DELETING 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 I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 8 CASH. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED HUGE AMOUNT IN CASH AND REPAID THE SAME IN CASH AND NO REASONS WER E EXPLAINED. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SQUARELY APPLIES 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 HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONAFIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAX PAYER COULD NOT GET THE LOANS 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 REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ACCEPT AND REPAY THE LOANS IN CASH. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN SO FAR AS OTHER ASSESSME NT YEARS ARE CONCERNED, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES ARE SIMILAR. THE ASSESSING 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 RECEIVING 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 OBSERVATIONS AND DECISION, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI SMISSED. 8 . AGAINST THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, SHRI P. MUTHUKARUPPAN PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE FIND MORE MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT - DEPARTMENT. FOR ANSWERING THE ISSUE, IT WILL BE USEFUL TO EXTRACT SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: ':269SS. MODE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING CERTAIN LOANS AND DEPOSITS. NO PERSON SHALL, AFT ER THR 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984, TAKE OR ACCEPT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE DEPOSITOR), ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF, - I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 9 (A) THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR D EPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT; OR ( B) ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED EARLIER BY SUCH PERSON FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS REMAINING UNPAID (WHETHER REPAYMENT HAS FALLEN D UE OR NOT), THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID; OR (C) THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) IS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES OR MORE: PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED FROM, OR ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED BY, - (A) GOVERNMENT; (B) ANY BANKING COMPANY, POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK OR CO - OPERATIVE BANK; (C) ANY CORPORA TION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT; (D) ANY GOVERNMENT COMPANY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956); (E) SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION, ASSOCIATION OR BODY OR CLASS OF INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, NOTIFY IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT WHERE THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT I S TAKEN OR ACCEPTED AND THE PERSON BY WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS TAKEN OR ACCEPTED ARE BOTH HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NEITHER OF THEM HAS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THIS ACT. EXPLANATION: - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, - (I) 'BANKING COMPANY' MEANS A COMPANY TO WHICH THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (10 OF 1949), APPLIES AND INCLUDES ANY BANK OR BANKING INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 51 OF THAT ACT; I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 10 (II) 'CO - OPERATIVE BANK' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (10 OF 1949) ; (III) 'LOAN OR DEPOSIT' MEANS LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF MONEY. 269T. MODE OF REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN LOANS OR DEPOSITS. NO BRANCH OF A BANKING COMPANY OR A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND NO OTHER COMPANY OR CO - OPERATIVE SOCIET Y AND NO FIRM OR OTHER PERSON SHALL REPAY ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT MADE WITH IT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IF - (A) THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT T OGETHER WITH THE INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABLE THEREON, OR (B) THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE LOANS OR DEPOSITS HELD BY SUCH PERSON WITH THE BRANCH OF THE BANKING COMPANY OR CO - OPERATIVE BANK OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE OTHER COMPANY OR CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY OR THE FIRM, OR OTHER PERSON EITHER IN HIS OWN NAME OR JOINTLY WITH ANY OTHER PERSON ON THE DATE OF SUCH REPAYMENT TOGETHER WITH THE INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABLE ON SUCH LOANS OR DEPOSITS, IS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES OR MORE : PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE REPAYMENT IS BY A BRANCH OF A BANKING COMPANY OR CO - OPERATIVE BANK, SUCH REPAYMENT MAY ALSO BE MADE BY CREDITING THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT TO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OR THE CURRENT ACCOUNT (IF ANY) WITH SUCH BRANCH OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSI T HAS TO BE REPAID: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO REPAYMENT OF ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED FROM - (I) GOVERNMENT; (II) ANY BANKING COMPANY, POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK OR CO - OPERATIVE BANK; (III) AN Y CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT; (IV) ANY GOVERNMENT COMPANY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956) ; I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 11 (V) SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION, ASSOCIATION OR BODY OR CLASS OF INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, NOTIFY IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. EXPLANATION: - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, - (I) 'BANKING COMPANY' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN CLAUSE (I) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 269SS ; (II) 'CO - OPERATIVE BANK' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (10 OF 1949) ; (III) 'LOAN OR DEPOSIT' MEANS ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF MONEY WHICH IS REPAYABLE AFTER NOTICE OR REPAYABLE AFTER A PERIOD AND, IN THE CASE OF A PERSON OTHER THAN A COMPANY, INCLUDES LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF ANY NATURE.' 9. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 269T MANDATE THAT NO AMOUNT SHOULD BE RECEIVED IN CASH IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED TH EREUNDER. THE STATEMENT OF THE FINANCIER PRODUCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WOULD BE A CASE OF MONEY - LENDING BUSINESS BY THE FINANCIER REPEATEDLY INDULGING IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 2 69T OF THE ACT. IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A COMPULSION ON THE PART OF THE FINANCIER. NEVERTHELESS, FACTUALLY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKING LOAN AND PAYING IT IN CASH IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS. THE TEST IN SO FAR AS N ON - LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIONS 271 D AND 271 E IS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FOR INVOKING SECTION 273B THE APPELLANT HAS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE CAUSE AND SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THEREIN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE. IN ANY EVENT, BY RECORD THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED AT THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) THAT THERE WERE SOME REA SONS FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN BREACH OF THE SAID PROVISIONS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION OF ANY BUSINESS INTEREST OR EXIGENCY TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 269SS AND SECTION 269T. IT IS NOT GOOD TO SAY THAT THE FINANCIER COMPELLED HIM TO TAKE LOAN BY CASH AND REPAY BY CASH. THAT WOULD NOT JUSTIFY A CASE OF REASONABLE CAUSE. WE WISH TO CLARIFY THAT NONE OF THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE APPELLANT WOULD SHOW THAT SECTIONS 271D I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 12 AND 271 E CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE. IN ALL THOSE DECISIONS, THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF BONA FIDE JUSTIFICATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT THE SAI D TRANSACTIONS WERE NEVER DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE AT ANY POINT OF TIME. 10. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE IN PONDICHERRY, A MAJOR CITY AND THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE REPAID THE AMOU NT IN CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT (I.E.) THROUGH BANK, ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT HE RECEIVED THE LOAN IN CASH. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE, A FINANCIER AND THE FINANCIER, WHO WAS ALSO FINANCING A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS, IS APPARENTLY TO EVADE THE P ROVISIONS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES, WHICH CAME TO LIGHT AFTER A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AND SOME DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS WERE SEIZED. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF INFRACTION OF LAW AND IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MERE TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH. INDEED, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, BECAUSE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE FINANCIER WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THIRD PARTIES ARE CLEARLY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN ONE STATEMENT THE FINANCIER CLEARLY STATES THAT HE USED TO CONDUCT THE MONEY - LENDING BUSINESS IN THE NAMES OF THIRD PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ON HIS PART HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY, FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR, CONDUCTED THE BUSINESS IN THE SAME MANNER BY RECEIVING AND REPAYING THE LOAN AMOUNT IN CASH. HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE CALLED AS A BONA FIDE TRANSACTION AND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES IS MORE IMPORTANT TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PASSED THE TEST OF REASONABLE C AUSE SHOWING HIS BONA FIDES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B DO NOT GET ATTRACTED, MORE SO, IN A CASE OF NO EXPLANATION OFFERED IN SPITE OF GIVING REPEATED CHANCES THEREFOR. ON THE FACTS IN ISSUE BEFORE US, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO JUSTIFICATION TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CHARGED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND SECTION 269T OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133 A IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF MR. A. KANNAN, PROPRIETOR OF VADAMALAYAN FINANCE ON OCTOBER 8, 2011, IT WAS FOUND THAT MR. A. KANNAN WAS DOING MONEY - LENDING BUSINESS, WHO CHOSE TO GIVE LOANS TO ONLY SELECTED GROUP OF PERSONS AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST FOR TEN MONTHS; THAT THE WHOLE TRANSACTION WAS DONE IN CASH ONLY, NAMELY, NO CHEQUE OR DRAFT CAME INTO PLAY; THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO FOUND AS ONE OF THE BORROWERS, AS HE RECEIVED CASH LOAN OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON JUNE 21, 2007, AND THE SAME WAS FOUND TO BE REPAID I N CASH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 13 2008 - 09. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED RS. 20 LAKHS ON APRIL 23, 2008 AND HE REPAID THE SAME IN CASH. IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR ON MARCH 7, 2009, HE HAD RECEIVED ANOTHER SUM OF RS. 20 LAKHS BUT THE RE IS NO PROOF OF REPAYMENT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ON JANUARY 9, 2010, HE RECEIVED CASH LOAN OF RS. 20 LAKHS AND HE HAD REPAID THE SAME IN CASH. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE APPELLANT TOOK CASH LOAN OF RS, 20 LAKHS ON NOVEMBER 3, 2010, A ND HAD REPAID A SUM OF RS. 23 LAKHS IN CASH. AGAIN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, HE HAD REPAID A SUM OF RS. 13 LAKHS IN CASH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS, THE APPELLANT WAS ISSUED WITH THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 2710 AND 271E OF THE A CT. THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM MR. A. KANNAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VADAMALAYAN FINANCE, IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2011, SHOWS THAT THE FINANCIER HAS ADMITTEDLY LENT A HUGE AMOUNT OF RS. 74 LAKHS TO VARIOUS PA RTIES BY CASH AND HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE HAD LENT RS. 2 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT. WHEN A SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS POSED TO HIM AS TO WHETHER HE WAS DOING THE MONEY - LENDING BUSINESS, BY CHEQUE OR CASH, HE HAS ANSWERED THAT TILL THEN HE HAS BEEN DOING THE M ONEY - LENDING BUSINESS ONLY BY CASH PAYMENT AND CASH REPAYMENT. AGAIN, MR. KANNAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VADAMALAYAN FINANCE, HAS ALSO FURTHER ADMITTED THAT HE HAS BEEN DOING MONEY - LENDING BUSINESS FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. THE APPELLANT HAVING TAKEN LOAN AMOUNT BY CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND REPAYING THE SAME BY CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T, CANNOT SEEK THE SUPPORT OF SECTION 273B. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO THE URGENCY, COMPULSION OR ANY OTHE R IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THE BREACH AND THAT TOO REPEATEDLY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SECTION 273B SHOWS THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISIONS, IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. IN THE CASE ON HAND, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS ISSUED WITH THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 271D AND 271E ON DECEMBER 16,2011, HAVING SENT A LETTER DATED JANUARY 11, 2012, SEEKING A DJOURNMENT, WAS ISSUED WITH ANOTHER NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY 1,2012. AGAIN SENDING ANOTHER LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 16,2012, SOUGHT ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT FOR ONE MORE WEEK ON THE GROUND THAT A CLOSE ASSOCIATE AND SENIOR CITIZEN OF HIS COMMUNITY PASSED AWAY ON FEBR UARY 16, 2012. ONCE AGAIN AFTER RECEIVING FRESH NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2012, AND ANOTHER NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2012, THE APPELLANT FINALLY SENT MR. V. JAYACHANDER, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO ALSO FILED ADJOURNMENT LETTER ON JULY 24, 2012. WHEN THE SA ID MR. V. JAYACHANDER, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED ON MAY 11, 2012, THEREAFTER, SADLY, NO ONE APPEARED. THAT APART, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 14 EVEN FILED ANY REPLY NOR EVEN THE PARTICULARS CALLED FOR VIDE ORDER - SHEET ENTRY DATED MAY 11, 2012, AND LETTER DATED MAY 2, 2012. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, AFTER GIVING REPEATED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES, FINDING NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER, WAS UNABLE TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 273B AND, ACCORDINGLY, IMPOSED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTIONS 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THIS FINDING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE FINDING OF FACTS HAVE BEEN REACHED BY ALL THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, TAKING NOTE OF THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT, WHO WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE PRAYER FOR REMANDING THE MATTER TO ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ARE ALSO NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SUBSEQUENT EXPLANATION. 12. ONE ANO THER ARGUMENT OF MR. S. SRIDHAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BALAJI TRADERS (SUPRA), WHICH HELD THAT IF (I) THERE WAS BUSINESS EXIGENCY FORCING THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE CASH LOANS FOR THE PUR POSE OF HONOURING THE COMMITMENT, VIZ., ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE ON A PARTICULAR DATE; (II) THE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE PERSONS AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NEVER DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ; AND (III) THERE WAS NO REVENUE LOSS TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER AND SATIS FIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS CAN BE APPLIED TO THIS CASE, IS NOT TENABLE. THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE HAD SATISFIED THE AUTHORITY BY SHOWING REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS THAT THERE WAS A BUSINESS EXIGENCY WHICH FORCED THEM TO TAKE CASH LOANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HONOURING THE COMMITMENT. AS HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE, ILL THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER TAKING REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE NEITHER CAME FORWARD TO FILE A NY REPLY NOR EVEN BOTHERED TO TAKE PART IN THE ENQUIRY TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN ADDITION THERETO, IN THE CASE ON HAND, AS THE FINANCIER HAS BEEN DOING MONEY - LENDING BUSINESS FOR 30 LONG YEARS BY GIVING AND TAKING BACK LOAN AMOUNTS ONLY THROUGH CASH, THERE HAS BEEN A HUGE REVENUE LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER. IT IS NOT A CASE OF BUSINESS EXIGENCY. HENCE, THE CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO REVENUE LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER IS NOT TENABLE PLEA. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE SAID JUDGMENT I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. 13. SIMILARLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT IS ALSO INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE SINCE, IN THE SA ID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL REACHED ITS CONCLUSION BY HOLDING THAT A REASONABLE CAUSE WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 15 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269'1 OF THE ACT AT THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER. SIMILARLY, IN YET ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, IN WHICH ONE OF US R. SUDHAKAR J., WHO WAS SPEAKING FOR THE COURT HAS HELD CLEARLY THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AVAILING OF LOAN FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS BY PROPERLY PLACING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS WHO HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND THE SAID TRANSACTION BEING FOUND INCAPABLE OF ANY SUSPICION BY THE AUTHORITIES, HENCE, ON THAT SCORE, THIS COURT REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR AVAILING OF SUCH A HUGE CASH LOAN TRANSACTION FOR NUMBER OF YEARS. WE HOLD THAT THE CITED JUDGMENT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 14. FOR ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, WE FIND THE PENALTY ORDER AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW. THE SAI D ORDER HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL, DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT. IN FINE, WE FINDING NO MERITS IN THE APPEALS NO QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISES, MUCH LESS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. THESE TAX CASE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. CONSEQUENTLY, M. P. NOS. 1 OF 2014 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 9 . IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS IN CASH AND IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF LAW NOT FOR IN A SINGLE ACCOUNTING YEAR, BUT CONTINUING THE VIOLATION FIRST BY THE FATHER AND NEXT HIS SON (ASSESSEE) SINCE MANY YEARS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS IGNORANCE BUT IT IS INTENTIONAL AND TOTAL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO VOUCH FOR ENTERING SUCH DETAILS. THESE CASH TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE FIRM IN WHICH HE IS THE PARTNER. NOW, IT BECOME ESSENTIAL TO PUT AN END TO THE PROLONGED AND PERSISTENT VIO LATION OF LAW BY TAKING AND REPAYING LOANS IN CASH EXCEEDING I.T.A. NO S . 262 & 263 /M/ 15 16 .20,000/ - . UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF P. MUTHUKARUPPAN V. JCIT (SUPRA), WE REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AS WELL AS PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AND R ESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271E AND 271D OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS . THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31 ST MARCH, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 31. 0 3 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.