B.Lakshmipathi Raj, Dharapuram V. JCIT, Erode

ITA 580/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7857 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR ERODE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $% , & '( BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 580/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 B. LAKSHMIPATHI RAJ, PROP: ANNAI ELECTRICAL COMPANY, 72, N.N.PETTAI, DHARAPURAM. PAN ABIPL5861B APPELLANT) V. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-I, ERODE. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE (ERODE) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B.KOLI, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2016 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.03.2016 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 8. 1.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH - - ITA 580/15 2 REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 2,00,000/- U/S.271D OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE AMOUNT OF ` 2 LAKHS WAS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER, SHRI G. BHARATHAN TO THE ASSESSEE, B. LAKSHMIPATHI RAJ. AS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI B. RAAJARAAJAN IN ITA NO.1371/MDS/2015 DATED 21.8.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN FATHER AND SON CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271-D OF THE ACT AND WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS FOLLO WS: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY FROM HIS O WN FATHER, MOTHER AND MOTHERS SISTER. THE ASSESSEE FI LED COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE AMOU NT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND IT WAS CLEARED ON THE VER Y NEXT DAY FOR HONOURING THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY HIM. THIS TR IBUNAL FOUND THAT THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SMT. M. YESODHA (2013) 351 ITR 265 HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER AN I DENTICAL ISSUE. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT A TRANSACTI ON BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIVES, I.E. ASSESSEE AND HIS DAUG HTER-IN- LAW AND FATHER-IN-LAW, WAS A REASONABLE TRANSACTION AND GENUINE ONE DUE TO URGENT NECESSITY IN PAYING THE M ONEY TO SELLER. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED CASH FROM HIS FATHER, MOTHER AND MOTHERS SISTER. I N VIEW OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND FRO M WHOM THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SMT. M. YESODHA (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE T O THE - - ITA 580/15 3 FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRAT ED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED IN CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT FOR CLEARING THE CHEQUE ISSUED DUE TO COMME RCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RECEIVING THE MONEY IN CASH AS FOUND BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SMT. M. YESODHA (SUPRA). 7. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN P. BASKAR (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM CLOSE RELATIVES. THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED MONEY FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE JUDG MENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN P. BASKAR (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE. SIMILARLY, THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THENAMAL CHHAJJER (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT A PPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SINCE IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF RECEIVING MONEY FROM CLOSE RELATIVES. HENCE, BY FOL LOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SMT. M. YESODH A (SUPRA), THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SE T ASIDE AND THE PENALTY IS DELETED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 4 TH OF MARCH, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ % . & '( ) ( ) * + , ) DUVVURU RL REDDY - ./012304556037- 8 9: /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! 9:;<<5=1>01>?@AB@3 )8 /CHENNAI, C9 /DATED, THE 4 TH MARCH, 2016. MPO* - - ITA 580/15 4 9D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H- /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. J(L /GF.