ITO, CHENNAI V. D.Muralikrishna, CHENNAI

ITA 626/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77391 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 68; 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 626/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XIII(4), CHENNAI-34. VS MR. D.MURALIKRISHNA, W-230, 12 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTENSION, CHENNAI-600 101. PAN: AHAPM3377K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.DAS GUPTA, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH JUNE, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH JULY, 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, CHENN AI DATED 26.11.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. T HE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE WHO IS INTO THE BU SINESS OF TRADING IN LEATHERS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.0 9.2009. 2 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF T HE ACT ON 28.11.2011. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SOURCES OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY (FLAT) WORTH ` 90,16,528/-. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS AND THE SOURCES FOR INVESTMENTS M ADE IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SOURCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 86,93,800/- AND TREATED DIFFERENCE OF ` 3,22,728/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE BO RROWED ` 20 LAKHS IN CASH FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND THOSE MEMB ERS HAVE ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS TO THE EXTENT THA T THEY HAVE LENT MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. THE SOURCES FUR NISHED BY THEM WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HO WEVER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271D WERE INITIAT ED FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT , AS THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED LOANS IN CASH AND IN THE COURSE O F PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED BEFORE A PARTICULAR DATE FIXED BY THE BUILDER AND IN ORDER T O AVOID INTEREST CHARGED ON THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT, ASSESSE E WAS UNDER PRESSURE AND HAD TO ARRANGE OUTSTANDING AMOUN T 3 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 WITHIN THE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THEREFORE HE HAS O BTAINED CASH LOANS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND THERE IS A REASO NABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING LOANS AS CASH AND THEREFORE THE RE IS NO INTENTION TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269S S OF THE ACT, THUS NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONA L COMMISSIONER BY ORDER DATED 27.6.2012 LEVIED PENAL TY OF ` 20,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD TO OBTAIN C ASH LOANS UNDER PRESSURE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AS THE BUILDER WAS INSISTING TO TAKE POSSESSION. ON APPEAL , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE P ENALTY HOLDING THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTI NG CASH LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 3. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER IN LEVYING PENALTY. REFERRING TO THE PENALTY ORDER, DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT FLAT WAS PURCHASED OVER A PERIOD OF TI ME, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ARRANGE MONEY IN SUCH A MANNER B Y TAKING CHEQUES IN ADVANCE TO PAY THE COST OF THE PR OPERTY 4 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 AND SINCE THERE IS NO URGENCY FOR ACCEPTING CASH L OANS, THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE WAS MADE OUT. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED ` 10,00,000/- FROM HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND ` 5,00,000/- EACH FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW AND CO-BR OTHER FOR PURCHASE OF THE FLAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EX AMINED THESE TRANSACTIONS WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND ACCEPTED THAT SOURCES AND TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING CASH LOANS, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT AS INSISTED BY THE BUILDER AND TO AVOID INTEREST CHARGED ON THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT, THE ASS ESSEE WAS UNDER PRESSURE AND HAD TO ARRANGE FOR THE AMOUN TS BY TAKING LOANS IN CASH WITHIN THE FAMILY AND THE INTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO TAKE POSSESSION OF FLAT WITHIN TH E TIME FIXED BY THE BUILDER. THEREFORE HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING CASH LOANS AND NO P ENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. COUNSEL AL SO PLACES 5 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. M.YESODHA (351 ITR 265) IN SUP PORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISION RELIED ON BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS SUBMITTED DET AILS FOR SOURCES OF ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY (FLAT) WHI CH WAS ACQUIRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 TO 200 9-10. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED LOAN OF ` 20,00,000/- IN CASH FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS FOR PURCHASE OF PR OPERTY TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT TO THE BUILDER AND TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A CCEPTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ACCEPTED SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENT WHILE COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAD CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT T HERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING CASH LOANS BY THE ASS ESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT TOOK ` 20,00,000/- AS LOANS IN CASH / F R OM HIS RELATIVES. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LOANS WERE TAKEN TO PAY THE BUILDER WHO INSISTED ON IMMEDIATE PAYMENT. AS FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, THERE IS A COMPULSORY NEED TO ACCEPT CAS H FROM HIS RELATIVES AND HAVING PAID 80% OF THE CONSIDERATION ALREADY, HE DID NOT WANT TO PAY ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS PENAL CHARGES AND WANTED TO TAKE OVE R THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, THE APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO TAKE LOANS FROM HIS REL ATIVES SINCE THE LOANS ARE FROM RELATIVES TO TIDE OVER THE IMMEDIATE DEMAND, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO INSIS T LOANS IN CHEQUES FROM THE RELATIVES. I AM THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE TO ACCEPT THE LOANS IN CASH. MOREOVER, THE ADDL CIT DID NOT PROVE THAT THE LOANS ARE NOT GENUINE. THOUGH THE SECTION DOES NOT TALK ABOUT GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE TRANSACT ION, SEC.273B COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE APPELLANT . IN THE SECTION, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY FAI LURE REFERRED TO IN THE SA I D PROVISIONS IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID F AILURE . GENUINE TRANSACTIONS TO MEET IMMEDIATE NECESSITY ARE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE FOLLOWING CAS ES: CIT VS BHAGWATI PRASA BAJORIA (HUF) (2003) 263 ITR 487(GUW): ' THE FACTS WHICH EMERGED IN THE CASE ARE THAT AS THE RESULT OF ADVANCEMENT OF TH E LOAN BY UMADATTA JHUNJUNWALA ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES OF ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED T H E PROMISSORY NOTES IN FAVOUR OF HER . THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN HAS FOUND PLACE IN THE B O OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LENDER OF THE LOAN . NONE OF TH E A UTHORITIES HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION OF THE LOAN WAS NOT GENUINE AND IT WAS A SHAM TRANSACTION TO COVER UP THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY . IT WAS H E LD THAT THE DELETION OF PENALTY U/S 271D WAS JUSTIFIED. ' CIT VS MANOJ LALWANI (2003) 260 ITR 590 (RAJ.) 'U/ S 273B A JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS LEFT WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY NOT TO LEVY A PE NALTY U/S 271D IF THE AUTHORITY IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT C O MPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 269SS OF THE ACT . IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE TR IBUN A L HAD FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 WAS AN EXPORTER AND WAS IN URGENT NEED OF THE MO NEY FOR COMPLYING WITH THE TIME BOUND SUPPLIES AND , THEREFORE , HE TOOK A LOAN OF ` 2, 50,000/- FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW . OUT OF THE LOAN SO TAKEN , AN AMOUNT OF ` 2, 45,000/- WAS IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK , WHICH INDICATED THAT THE AMOUNT O F L OA N , IN FACT , WAS RECEIVED BY HIM . IT WAS ONLY ' TO MEET THE EMERGENT NEED OF TIM E BOUND SUPPLIES THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN AS HE DID NOT HAVE SUFFIC I ENT TIME AND FU NDS AND T HAT T HERE WAS NO INTENT I ON TO VIOLATE THE PRO VI S I ONS OF SEC . 269SS . THE T RI B U N AL HAD A C TE D I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN WAIVING THE PENALTY . ' CIT VS SAINI MEDICAL ST O R E (2 00 5) 276 ITR 79 (P&H) ' A COMBINED READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 27 1D AND 2738 OF THE I . T . ACT , MAKES I T CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR T HE FAILUR E TO CO MPLY WITH ANY PROVISION REFERRED TO THEREIN , THE PENALTY FOR ITS VIOLATION S HALL NOT BE IM POSABLE ON THE ASSESSEE . IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE CIT ( A) IN HIS ORDER D A T ED 18 . 01 . 1999 , WHEREBY THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT WAS DELETED , HAD ACCEPTED TH E VE R S ION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT VIOLATION OF THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT WAS UNDER A BO N A FIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT WITH ANY I NTENTION TO A V O I D OR EVA D E T HE T AX . HIS FINDINGS HAVE BEEN CONF I RMED IN APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENC E THE AP P EAL IS DISM I SSE D . ' T HE SCOPE AND R AT I ONALE BEHIND THE I N TR ODUCT I ON OF THIS SECT I ON WAS E X PL A IN E D BY T H E BOARD I N CIRCULAR NO.387, DATED 06 . 07.1984 WHICH READ S AS UNDER : ' UNACCOUNTE D CASH FOUND I N THE COURSE OF SEARCHES C ARR I ED OU T B Y T H E I NCOME- T AX DE P ART MEN T I S OF T EN EXPLA I NED BY TA X PAYERS AS REPRESENTING LOANS TAKEN F R OM OR DEPOSITS M A DE BY VAR I OUS PERSONS . UNACCOUNTED I NCOME IS ALSO BROUGHT INTO BOOKS OF ACCOU N T IN THE FORM OF SUCH LOANS AND DEPOSITS , AND TAX PAYERS ARE ALSO ABLE TO G E T C O NF I RM A TORY LETTERS FROM SUCH PERSONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EXPLANATION. WITH A VIEW TO COUNTERING THIS DEVICE , WHICH ENABLES TAX PAYERS TO E X PLAIN AWAY U N ACC OUNT E D CASH OR UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS , THE F I NANCE ACT HAS INSERTED A N E W SECTION 2 69SS IN T HE INCOME - TAX ACT DEBARRING PERSONS FROM TAKING OR ACCEPTING , AFTER 30 TH JU N E 1 98 4 , FR OM ANY OTHER PERSON ANY LOAN OR DEPOS I T OTHERWISE THAN BY A N 8 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 AC COUNT PA Y EE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAF T I F THE AMOUN T O F SU C H LOA N O R DEPO S IT OR T HE AGGREGA T E AMOUNT OF S U CH LOA N A ND D EPOS I T IS ` 10 , 000/- OR MORE IN T H I S CASE , THE L OA N TRANSACT I ON W I TH TH E R E L ATIVES WERE NOT DOUB LE D AND ONL Y T H E MODE O F T R ANSACTION WAS QUESTIONED AS IT WAS IN VIO L ATION OF SEC . 2 69SS O F THE AC T . CONSIDER I NG THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRANSACT I ON , I AM OF T HE OPIN I ON THA T THE BREACH IS OF VEN I A L I N NATURE AND RELIANCE IS PLAC ED ON THE DEC I SION I N THE CASE OF CI T VS PA RM ANAND (2004) 266 ITR 255 DEL HI . TH E DECIS I ON READS AS UNDER: ' THE TRIBUNAL ' S ORDER SHOWS THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT STRICTLY COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 269SS OF THE ACT IS BASED ON RELEVANT FACTORS. WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS EITH ER PERVERSE OR SO IRRATIONAL THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON , ON THE GIVEN FAC T S , WOULD HAVE COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION . THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL A R E ESSENTIALLY FACTUAL GIVING RISE TO NO QUESTION OF L AW MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL Q UESTION OF LAW . THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . ' IN FINE, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT I S FULLY ALLOWED AND THE PENALTY LE VIED U/S. 271D OF THE ACT AT ` 20,00,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. SMT. M.YESODHA (SUPRA), MORE OR LESS ON SIMIL AR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT LOAN TAKEN BY THE DAUGHTER- IN-LAW FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS A GENUINE TRANSACTION AND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCE PTING 9 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 CASH LOAN AND THEREFORE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D WAS DELETED OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLAN T AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ON 'REASONABLE CAUSE' BEING SHOWN, NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REPLY FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY MENTION ED THAT HER FATHER-IN-LAW - M.KATHIRVEL SENT THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,99,393/- DIRECTLY TO THE SELLER OF THE HOUSE BOUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AT CHENNAI AND THAT NECESS ARY FUNDS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER-IN-LAW AS A CASH GIFT AND THE SAID CASH GIFT WAS TAKEN URGENTLY BY THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE PURCHASE DEED EXECUTED AND NO L OAN WAS TAKEN FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN A SPECIFIC PLEA OF REASONABL E CAUSE, IT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS APPLIED TO HUMAN AC TION. WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BONAFIDE, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. 9. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PLEA THAT HER FATHER-IN-LAW HAD ADVANCED THE AMOUNT AS CASH GIFT, THE ASSESSEE'S FA THER- IN-LAW HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). REGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT, REM AND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED TH E NATURE OF TRANSACTION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER FA THER- IN-LAW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT DISPUTED, IN WHICH, THE A MOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE FATHER-IN-LAW FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND THE SOURCE HAD ALSO BEEN DISCLOSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONAFIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAX PAYER COULD NOT GE T A LOAN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND D RAFT FOR SOME BONA FIDE REASON, THE AUTHORITY VESTED WIT H THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCRETION NOT TO LEV Y PENALTY. 10 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE AMOUN T RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN- HAS TO BE TREATED ONLY AS A LOAN AND IF IS A LOAN, THEN THE A SSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. WHETHER IT IS A LOAN OR OTHER TRANSACTION , STILL THE OTHER PROVISION, NAMELY, SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE, IF SHE AB LES TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AVOIDING PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHT LY FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE DAUGHTER-IN- LAW AND FATHER-IN-LAW IS A REASONABLE TRANSACTION AND A GENUINE ONE OWING TO THE URGENT NECESSITY OF MONEY TO BE PAID TO THE SELLER. WE FIND THAT THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO REASONABLE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. IN THE CASE ON HAND, ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED HO USE PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE, ASSESSEE HAS OBT AINED CASH LOANS FROM MOTHER-IN-LAW, BROTHER-IN-LAW AND CO-BRO THER WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO TAKE CASH LOANS T O CLEAR OFF OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE BUILDER AND THEREFORE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING CASH LOANS FROM FAMIL Y MEMBERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUS E IN ACCEPTING CASH LOANS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271D IS NOT EXIGIBLE. THUS, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE 11 ITA NO. 626/MDS/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, TH E 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD ) . ( ' )* ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / , JUDICIAL MEMBER/ ) , ) /CHENNAI, - /DATED, 17 TH JULY, 2014 SOMU /0 10 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 6 /DR 6. /GF .