M.Subramaniam, Coimbatore V. JCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 708/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96297 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Gift; Question of law; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASSESS- MENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 707/MDS/2015 2009-10 MRS.S.VASUNDARA DEVI 2/171, KUMUDHAM NAGAR, VILLANKURICHI ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 035. PAN:ABGPV3470H JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-II, COIMBATORE. 708 & 709/MDS/2015 2009-10 MR. M.SUBRAMANIAM, 2/171, KUMUDHAM NAGAR, VILLANKURICHI ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 035. PAN: AIXPS2782A JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-II, COIMBATORE. / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY TWO ASSESSEES NAMELY S MT. S.VASUNDARA DEVI AND MR. M.SUBRAMANIAM AGAINST TH E ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) -2, COIMBATORE DATED 19.01.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARISING OUT OF PENALTY ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. AS THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEES ARE MEMBERS OF HU F OF M.SUBRAMANIAM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BOTH THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE HUSBAND AND WIFE HAVE RECEIVED AND REPAID CASH LOAN S EXCEEDING ` 20,000/- FROM/TO M.SUBRAMANIAM (HUF) THEREBY CONTRAVENING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 26 9T OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT BUT IT IS ONLY AN ACCOMMODATION TRANSACTION THERE IS NO REVENUE LEAKAGE OR EVASION OF TAX FROM ACCEPTING AND REPAYING THE AMOUNTS FROM HUF, THEREFORE PLEADED T HAT NO PENALTY TO BE LEVIED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R LEVIED PENALTY FOR ACCEPTING AND REPAYING THE AMOUNTS EXCE EDING ` 20,000/- IN CASH. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE PENALTIES LEVIED REJECT ING THE CONTENTION THAT PENALTIES COULD NOT ATTRACT FOR GEN UINE CREDITS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING AND REPAYING LOANS AND THUS HE SUSTAINED THE PENALTIES. 3 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY PLACES RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SMT. M.YESODHA (351 ITR 265) AND SUBMITS THAT AN IDENTI CAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT EXCEEDING ` 20,000/- FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIAB LE UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT SINCE THE TRANSACTION IS GE NUINE AND BONAFIDE. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT BOT H THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND WIFE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF M.SUBRAMANIAM (HUF) HAVE TAKEN CASH LOANS EXCEEDIN G ` 20,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY JOINTLY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HE SUBMITS THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND THE TRANSACTION IS BETWEEN HUF AND INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS NO EVASION OF TAX AND CERTAINLY THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. HE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITS THAT THE PENALTY IS NOT AUTOM ATIC, THE AUTHORITY VESTED WITH POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS D ISCRETION NOT TO LEVY PENALTY. COUNSEL FURTHER REFERRING TO T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY M.SUBRAMANIAM (HUF) SUBMITS THAT 4 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 PROPERTY IN FACT SOLD WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME AND THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT ` 43,00,000/-. 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER PLACES RELIANC E ON THE DECISIONS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.BAS KAR VS. CIT (21 TAXMANN.COM 78) AND KASI CONSULTANT CORPOR ATION VS. DCIT (311 ITR 419). 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEES HAVE SHOWN M.SUBRAMANIAM (HUF) AS A LOAN CREDITOR AS ON 31.03.2009 AND HE NOTICED THAT ASS ESSEES HAVE RECEIVED CASH LOANS EXCEEDING ` 20,000/- FROM HUF. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE STATUS I.E. INDIVIDUAL AND HUF NEITHER AMOUNTS TO DEPOSIT NOR LOAN AND THERE IS NO EVASION OF TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION IS BONAFIDE AND GENUINE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT OBJECT OF SECTION 269SS WAS TO ENSURE THAT NO UNACCOUNTED MONEY IS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT SINCE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES THERE IS NO TAX EVAS ION, NO 5 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED AS UNDER:- 1. THE CASH TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT IS ONLY BETWEEN THE FAMILY MEMBERS I.E.. BETWEEN MEMBERS OF FAMILY AND HUF. THE APPELLANT IS A MEMBER OF M.SUBRANANIAM (HUF). 2. THE ACCOMMODATION OF CASH TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN. THE FAMILY MEMBERS DID NOT RESULT IN A NY EVASION OF TAX 3. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF MAKING A NY FIC TITIOUS ENTRIES IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTION. 4. M.SUBRARNANIAM (HUF) IS ALSO ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX IN PAN: AABHS5D66RJVVARD-II(2)/CBE AND IT HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200910 ON 02-07-2009. 5. M. SUBRAMANIARN (HUF) HAD SOLD PROPERTY AT D-2, 1 ST FLOOR D BLOCK, DOOR NO,25-02, BHARATHI PARK 4TH CROSS,ALAGESAN ROAD' SAIBABA COLONY, COIMBATORE. FOR RS.42,00,000/- DURING THE A SSESSRNENT YEAR 2009- 10 THE APPELLANT NOT THE MONEY FROM HUF FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY IN HER 'INDIVIDUAL NAM E ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND SHRI. M, SUBRAMANIAM AND HAD ADVANCED RS.27,00,000 /- TO MR. K.RAMESH, COIMBATORE. 6. THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE FAMILY MEMBER S ARE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE TRANSACTIONS . 7. THE SOURCE OF MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. 9. THE APPELLANT HAD NO INTENTION TO EVADE TAX AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO AVOID ANY TAX LIABILITY. 6 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 10. THOUGH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COM MITTED ANY DEFAULT, IT WAS ONLY TECHNICAL AND VENIAL IN NATURE . 11. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT APP ELLANT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE AND IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271E MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 6. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) SUSTAINED THE PENALTIES HOLDING THAT EVEN IN GENUIN E TRANSACTIONS PENALTIES ARE LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF REASONAB LE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING THE AND REPAYING THE CASH LOANS EXCEEDING ` 20,000/-. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT TRANSACTION S ARE BETWEEN THE HUF AND INDIVIDUALS. THE HUF SOLD THE P ROPERTY IN COIMBATORE FOR ` 43,00,000/- DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ADVANCED MONIES TO M.SUBRAMANIAM AND HIS WIFE S MT. VASUNDARA DEVI FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAMES. IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT TRANSACTI ON BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT GENUINE AND BONAFIDE TRANSAC TIONS. THE SOURCE OF MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN T HE RETURN OF M.SUBRAMANIAM(HUF). IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MO NEY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE VERY PURPOSE OF BRIN GING IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT TO CURB THE 7 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 PRACTICE OF INTRODUCING BLOCK MONEY INTO BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INTENTION TO EVADE TAX AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY LIABILITY. THE TRANSAC TIONS ARE BETWEEN THE HUF AND INDIVIDUAL. THE INDIVIDUALS HAV E ACCEPTED LOANS FROM HUF FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCE PTING SUCH LOANS. 7. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS.LAKSHMI TRUST CO. (303 ITR 99) UPHELD THE ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUN AL WHO FOUND ON FACTS THAT TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND I DENTITY OF THE LENDER WAS ESTABLISHED, THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE TAX, THE CANCELLATION OF P ENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE HIGH COURT OBSERVE D AS UNDER:- WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUB MISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. THIS COURT IN CIT V. KUNDRAIHUR FINANCE AND CHIT CO. [2006] 283 ITR 8 329 (MAD), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN ASST. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVST.) V. KUM. A. B. SHANTHI [2002] 255 ITR 258, HELD THAT IF THERE WAS GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAX PAYER COULD N OT GET 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 LE VY PENALTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 8 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 (APPEALS) AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOUND ON THE F ACTS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THE IDENTITY OF T HE LENDERS WAS ALSO SATISFIED. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALSO UPH ELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) T HAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE THE TAX. ONCE THE SAID FINDING AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE F ACTS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. RATNA AGENCIES [2006] 284 ITR 609, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FI NDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD IS A FINDIN G OF FACT AND NO QUESTION OF LAW MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WOULD ARISE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO HOLD THAT IT MAY NOT BE PROPER FOR THIS COURT TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH A FINDING OF FACT. 8. FURTHER, ALMOST IDENTICAL SITUATION CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF M.YESODHA (351 ITR 265) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE ACCEPT ED LOAN AMOUNT OF MORE THAN ` 20,000/- IN CASH FROM HER FATHER- IN-LAW FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT TRANSACTION BET WEEN THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND FATHER-IN-LAW IS A REASONABLE TRANSACTION AND GENUINE ONE OWING TO URGENT NECESSITY AND MONEY TO BE PAID TO THE SELLER AND THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO REASONA BLE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271D OF THE ACT. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE HIGH COURT HELD A S UNDER:- 2. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CLAIMED LOAN OF RS. 20,99,393 TAKEN FROM HER FATHER -IN-LAW FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS. 20,99,393 IN CASH FROM H ER 9 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 FATHER-IN-LAW, WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. DURING THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW, M.KATHIRVE L, WAS A GIFT AND NOT A LOAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT AS A LOAN AND NOT AS A GIFT, BECAUSE THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS A LOAN IN THE BALANCE - SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS FILED ALONG WITH T HE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVI ED PENALTY OF RS.20,99,393. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE AND ON BEING FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE AMOUNT IN CAS H TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW WAS NOT A GI FT BUT ONLY A LOAN. 4. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M. RAJU V. ADDL. CIT IN I. T. A. NO. 899/MDS/2006 AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO V. SUNIL M. KASLIWAL REPOR TED IN [2005] 94 ITD 281 (PUNE)(TM). THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REF ERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT CIT V. LAKSHMI TRUST CO. [2008] 303 ITR 99 (MAD) AND HELD THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS N OT WARRANTED. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THE TRANS ACTION OF RECEIVING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,99,393 IS BETWEEN TH E FATHER-IN-LAW AND THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT DISPUTED, IN WHICH, THE A MOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE FATHER-IN-LAW FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. ON THOSE FINDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED T HE APPEAL. 5. MR. J. NARAYANASAMY, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION A ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ONLY LOAN OF RS. 20,99,393 F ROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NO WHERE PLEADED ANY 'REASONABLE CAUSE' AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT AND WHILE SO, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RIGHT IN SAYING THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT DISPUTED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RIGHT IN REAPPR ECIATING THE FACTUAL FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND 10 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THATTHE CA SH TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW WAS ON LY A LOAN TRANSACTION. 6. PER CONTRA, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS EVIDENT FROM THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW WAS A CASH GIFT AND NO LOAN WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE 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 CO UNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REPLY FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY MENTION ED THAT HER FATHER-INLAW, M. KATHIRVEL, SENT THE AMOUN T OF RS. 20,99,393 DIRECTLY TO THE SELLER OF THE HOUSE BOUGH T IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AT CHENNAI AND THAT NECESSARY 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 BONA FIDE, PENALTY CANNO T 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, REMA ND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I N THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED TH E NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER FATHER-IN-LAW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT DISPUTED, IN WHICH, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE FATHER-IN-LAW FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND THE SOURCE HAD ALSO BEEN DISCLOSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IF THE RE WAS A GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAX PAYER COULD NOT GET A LOAN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT FOR SOME BONA FIDE REASON, THE AUTH ORITY VESTED WITH THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCR ETION NOT TO LEVY PENALTY. 11 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE AMOUN T RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW HAS TO BE TREATED ONLY AS A LOAN AND IT IS A LOAN, THEN THE A SSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME- 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 RESCUEOF THE ASSESSEE, IF SHE ABL E TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AVOIDING PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTL Y FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE DAUGHTER-IN- LAW AND THE FATHER-IN-LAW IS A REASONABLE TRANSACTION A ND 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. 11. REFERRING TO THE DECISION CIT V. KUNDRATHUR FIN ANCE AND CHIT CO. REPORTED IN [2006] 283 ITR 329 (M AD), THIS COURT IN THE DECISION CIT V. LAKSHMI TRUST CO. REPO RTED IN [2008] 303 ITR 99 (MAD), HELD AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 101) : 'IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOUND ON THE F ACTS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDERS WAS ALSO SATISFIED. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE THE TAX. ONCE THE SAID FINDING AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE F ACTS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. RATN A AGENCIES [2006] 284 ITR 609, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD IS A FIND ING OF FACT AND NO QUESTION OF LAW MUCH LESS A SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF LAW WOULD ARISE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HES ITATION TO HOLD THAT IT MAY NOT BE PROPER FOR THIS COURT TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH A FINDING OF FACT.' 12. THE TRIBUNAL, REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT CIT V. LAKSHMI TRUST CO. REPORTED IN [2008] 303 ITR 99 ( MAD), HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS TAX CASE (APPEAL) STANDS DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 12 ITA NOS. 707 TO 709/MDS/2015 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASES. THUS, WE HERE BY DELETE THE PENALTIES LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT IN THESE APPEALS. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE ES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( $ &' ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &* ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER & /CHENNAI, , /DATED 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SOMU */0 10 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 **5 /DR 6. 8 /GF .