NARAYANJI SPICES & PULSES PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. JCIT, Jaipur

ITA 812/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5636 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GOGRA; S S GOGRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

- VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 812, 1003 & 1004/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. NARAYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. 855, AAKRON KA RASTA, KISHANPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE JCIT CENTRAL RANGE JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AACCN 3858 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.K. GOGRA, CA AND SHRI S.S. GOGRA, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /01/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 4, JAIPUR DATED 03-06-20 16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY REG ARDING IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,20,000, 1,60,000 & RS. 55,000/- U/ S 271D OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 2 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN ASSESSEES ITA NO. 1003/JP/ 2016 AND 1004/JP/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2010-11 AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) JAIPUR DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 3-06-2016. THE APPELLA NT UNDER THE BONA FIDE IMPRESSION SUBMITTED SINGLE APPEAL BE FORE THE HON'BLE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHICH W AS PASSED BY HIM AS SINGLE ORDER. THE APPELLANT IN FOR M NO. 36 IN COLUMN NO. 3 MENTIONED THE REFERENCE OF APPEAL F OR THREE YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS REALIZED BY THE APPELLA NT THAT THE THREE APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON 'BLE ITAT IN RESPECT OF ABOVE THRRE YEARS. VIDE APPLIC ATION DATED 11-11-2016 THE APPELLANT REQUESTED TO THE HON 'BLE ITAT TO TREAT THE APPEAL FILED ON 12-09-2016 FOR TH E A.Y. 2007-08. SINCE THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E NOTICED VOLUNTARILY, THEREFORE, THE SEPARATE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2010-11 ARE BEING SUBMITTED. THE DELAY OF 63 DELAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. 2. THAT THE DELAY MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED KEEPING IN VIEW OF INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE PO OR APPLICANT. 3. THAT THE APPEAL FEE OF RS. 500/- FOR A.Y. 2008-0 9 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 8-11-2016 AND COPY OF THE CHALLAN IS ENCLOSED WITH MEMO OF APPEAL. 4. THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. IT IS THEREFORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OCCUR RED DUE TO BONAFIDE AND REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED FOR IMPARTING JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 3 2.2 THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION APPLICA TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR LATE FILING OF THE APPEALS. 2.3 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONDONATION APPLICATIONS FOR LATE FIL ING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF H ON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KA TIJI AND OTHERS, 167 ITR 471 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED POWER TO CONDONE DE LAY BY ENACTING SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE EXPRESSION ' SUFFICIENT CAUS E ' IN SECTION 5 IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY TH E LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE--THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTIO N OF COURTS. A JUSTIFIABLY LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO BE ADOPTED ON P RINCIPLE. THUS THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE ALLOWED. 3.1 APROPOS ASSESSEE'S SOLITARY GROUND FOR IMPOSITI ON OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT IN THESE THREE APPEALS, THE FACTS A S EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE AYS AND ALSO CAREFULLY GON E THROUGH PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271D OF THE ACT FO R THE YEARS. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX O F THE CASE AS WELL AS APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. ON PERUSA L OF ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 4 SUBMISSION, IT IS SEEN ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FOLLOW ING AMOUNTS IN CASH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- FROM THE FOL LOWING PERSONS:- A.Y. RECEIVED FROM AMOUNT IN CASH 2007-08 SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEENA & SHRI JITENDRA MEENA RS. 1,20,000/ 2008-09 SHRI RAM KARAN MEENA & SMT. MOHINI POONIA RS. 1,60,000/- 2010-11 SHRI RAM KARAN MEENA & SHRI RAM SWAROOP MEENA, DIRECTOR 55,000/- IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO AFOREMENTIONED SUMS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT ACCOUNT ON URGENT BASIS TO MEET B USINESS LIABILITY. EXPLANATION GIVEN IN THIS REGARD DOES NO T SEEM TO BE BONA FIDE AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN EXAC T NATURE OF URGENT BUSINESS REQUIREMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A/C MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE IS A COMPOSITE A/C WHICH CON TAINS DETAILS OF ENTRIES IN CHEQUE (SPECIALLY FOR SALARY TRANSACTION & LOAN TRANSACTIONS) AND CASH TRANSACTIONS BUT EVEN AFTER REPEATED REQUEST, NO SUCH LEDGER A/C OR CASH BOOK O F COMPANY. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY ITS CONTENTION, PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT IS HEREBY JUSTIF IED IN FOLLOWING CASES:- ITA NO. A.Y. PENALTY IMPOSED 269/12-13 2007-08 RS. 1,20,000/- 270/12-13 2008-09 RS. 1,60,000/- 271/12-13 2010-11 RS. 55,000/- ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FAILS IN GR. NO. 1 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11. ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 5 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FU NDS FROM ITS DIRECTORS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. S.N. NAME OF DIRECTOR DATE AMOUNT TAKEN NATURE OF FUNDS 1. JITENDRA MEENA 30-10-2006 50,000/- AS SHARE CAPI TAL 2. RAMSWAROOP MEENA 30-10-2006 50,000/- AS SHARE CAPITAL 3. RAMSWAROOP MEENA 30-10-2006 20,000/- FUNDS FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTION FURTHER THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FUNDS IN FORM CONTRIBUTION F ROM ITS DIRECTORS AS BUSINESS ADVANCE IN ITS REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2010-11. A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2010-11 S.N. NAME OF DIRECTOR DATE AMOUNT TAKEN NATURE OF FUNDS NAME OF DIRECTOR DATE AMOUNT TAKEN NATURE OF FUNDS 1. RAMKARAN MEENA 2-04-07 20,000 FUNDS FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTION RAMKARAN MEENA 20-11-09 20,000 FUNDS FROM DIRECTORS BROTHER (BROTHER OF RAMSWAROOP MEENA 2. RAMKARAN MEENA 3-04-07 20,000 -DO- RAMKARAN MEENA 28-12-09 5,000 - DO - 3. RAMKARAN MEENA 4-04-07 20,000 -DO- RAMSWAROOP MEENA 11-10-09 10,000 FUNDS FROM DIRECTOR IN CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTION 4. MOHINI POONIA 4-04-07 20,000 -DO- RAMSWAROOP MEENA 12-10-09 20,000 - DO 5. MOHINI POONIA 7-04-07 20,000 -DO- - - - - 6. MOHINI POONIA 8-04-07 20,000 -DO- - - - - ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 6 7. MOHINI POONIA 22-04-07 20,000 -DO- - - - - 8. MOHINI POONIA 25-04-07 20,000 -DO- - - - - TOTAL 1,60,000 TOTAL 55,000 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE SHA RE CAPITAL AS LOAN / DEPOSIT WHEREAS IT HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE AO THAT T HIS IS NOT A LOAN BUT ERRED IN TREATING THE SAME AS DEPOSIT. THE SHARES ARE ISSUED BY COMPANY WHICH IS CLOSELY HELD BY A PRIVATE COMPANY AND NOT A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER BOTH THE COMPANIES ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AND HAVING DIFFERENT PROVISION S FOR COMPLIANCE FOR ISSUANCE OF SHARE CAPITAL. IN PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY SHARES MAY BE ISSUED WITHOUT FOLLOWING UP GUIDELINES OF SEBI WHEREAS IN CASE OF PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY ALL GUIDELINES OF SEBI INCLUDING I SSUING OF PROSPECTUS, FILING OF LETTER OF INTENT ETC. ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED. THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T ARE NOT APPLICA BLE ON CLOSELY HELD COMPANY. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FUND S ARE TAKEN BY THE COMPANY FROM ITS DIRECTOR IN ITS REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. THESE FUNDS ARE RECEIVED TO MEET URGENT BUSINESS NEEDS OF COMPANY T IME TO TIME. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS WERE ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 7 SUBMITTED TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT THE LOWER AU THORITIES ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN BETWEEN A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS IMPLYING THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL IS MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF TWO CONCERNS AND THE TRANSACTIONS DO NOT PARTAKE THE NA TURE OF DEPOSIT OF LOAN. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE TRANSACTIO N IS TAKEN WITH BONA FIDE INTENTION AND NO INGENUITY IS BROUGHT IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE RETURN INCOME IS ACCE PTED. WHEN THERE IS NO CASE OF AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THEN THESE TRANSACT IONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONE SINGLE PERSON SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA IS MANAGING ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP COMPANIES AND THE DECISION TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ONCE CONCERN TO ANOTHER OR TO REPAY THE FUNDS COULD HAVE BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TRANSACTION PARTAKE THE NATURE OF EITHER DEPOS IT OR LOAN. THE LD. AR FILED THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 21-11-201 OF SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA WITH REGARD TO HIS CONTENTION THAT ONE PERSON WAS M ANAGING THE ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ENTIRE GROUP. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS TO THIS EFFECT. ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 8 1. ITO VS. YUGANT TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 2016 50 ITR PAGE 328 (DELHI ITAT) - HELD THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVE D LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH IN FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SUM AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND INITIATING PENALTY U/S. 271D BECAUSE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS OUTSIDE THE PUR VIEW OF SECTION 269SS, HENCE SAME WAS NOT LOAN OR DEPOSIT. 2. DILLU CINE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT 2002-TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 733 HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL - HELD THAT THE ACTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CLE ARLY NOT COVERED BY THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER PERSON OCCURRING IN S ECTION 269SS OF THE ACT.FURTHER HELD THAT MERE TECHNICAL BREACH O F PROVISIONS, WHILE TRANSACTIONS WERE HELD TO BE GENUINE DO NOT A TTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS, THEREFORE, WHERE ONE OF THE DIREC TORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY BROUGHT FUNDS FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT WHE NEVER ASSESSEE WAS IN REQUIREMENT OF FUNDS WHETHER TRANSA CTIONS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL WITHI N MISCHIEF SOUGHT TO BE REMEDIED BY THE SECTION AS THERE IS NO CASE A GAINST ASSESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVA SION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3. CIT VS. IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD. 2006-TAX PUBLI SHER (DT) 1251 MADRAS HIGH COURT - HELD THAT : AMOUNT RECEIVED BY A PRIVATE COMPANY FROM ITS DIRECTOR NEITHER LOAN NO R DEPOSIT SINCE THE TRANSACTION DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF LOAN OR ADVANCE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS. 4. CIT VS. AJANTA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS 2003 - 2 64 - ITR - PAGE 505 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) - HELD THAT WHILE LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271D FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 20,000/- IS TO BE ALLOWED WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE U/S. 269SS. 5. SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. C IT 2016 TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 VISHAKHAPATNAM TRIBU NAL - HELD THAT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF `JUDGMENT OF RAJ. HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AJANTA DYING & PRINTING MILLS HELD THAT PENALTY SHALL BE LEVIED AFTER EXCLUDING RS. 20,000/- IN EA CH CASE AS PERMISSIBLE U/S. 269SS OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 9 3.3 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALMOST SIMILAR WRITTEN SUBMI SSION PRAYING THEREIN THAT THE FUNDS ARE TAKEN BY THE COMPANY FROM ITS DI RECTORS IN ITS REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE FUNDS ARE RECEIVED TO MEET UR GENT BUSINESS NEEDS OF THE COMPANY TIME TO TIME WHICH ARE IN FORM OF CO NTRIBUTION INSTEAD OF DEPOSIT. THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. AR FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE TERM ANY OTHER PERSON DOES NOT DENOTE DIRECTOR OF THE C OMPANY. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE RECEIPT WAS FROM DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COM PANY THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS DOES NOT APPLY. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN BETWEEN A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS IMPLYING THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL IS MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF TWO CONCERNS AND THE TRANSACTIONS DO NOT PARTAKE THE NA TURE OF DEPOSIT OF LOAN. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE TRANSACTIO N IS TAKEN WITH BONA FIDE INTENTION AND NO INGENUITY IS BROUGHT IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE RETURN INCOME IS ACCE PTED. WHEN THERE IS NO CASE OF AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THEN THESE TRANSACT IONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 10 ONE SINGLE PERSON SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA IS MANAGING ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP COMPANIES AND THE DECISION TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ONCE CONCERN TO ANOTHER OR TO REPAY THE FUNDS COULD HAVE BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TRANSACTION PARTAKE THE NATURE OF EITHER DEPOS IT OR LOAN. THE LD. AR FILED THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 21-11-201 OF SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA (ELDER BROTHER) WITH REGARD TO HIS CONTENTION THAT ONE PERSON WAS MANAGING THE ENTIRE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ENTIRE GROU P. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS TO THIS EFFE CT. 1. DILLU CINE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT 2002-TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 733 HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL 2. CIT VS. IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD. 2006-TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 1251 MADRAS HIGH COURT . 3. CIT VS. YESODHA (2015) 66 (II) ITCL-PAGE 578 (CHENNAI TRIBUNAL) - HELD THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS WERE GENUINE AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTIONS. TH E SOURCE OF MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN DISLOSED IN THE RETURN OF HU F. FURTHER IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD INTRO DUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS THE V ERY PURPOSE OF BRINGING IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269 T WAS TO CURB THE PRACTICE OF INTRODUCING BLACK MONEY INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO EVADE TAX AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY LIABILITY. THE INDIVIDUAL HAD A CCEPTED LOANS FROM HUF FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIVIDU AL NAMES AND HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING SUCH LOANS. THER EFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME WAS SET ASIDE. FOLLOWED CASE OF CIT VS. M YESODHA (MADRAS HIGH COURT). ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 11 4. CIT VS. AJANTA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS 2003 - 26 4 - ITR - PAGE 505 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) 5. SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. CIT 2016 TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 VISHAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL 3.4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE FUNDS FROM ITS DIRECTORS FOR MEETING O UT THE URGENT NEEDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITT ED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT ED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSME NT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE ACCEPTED AND THERE WAS NO CASE A GAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVA SION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT SECTION 271D READ WITH SECTION 269SS WAS INTRODUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO DISCOURAGE THE MENACE OF BLACK MONEY. SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, THIS ELEMENT OF BLACK MONEY IS TOTALLY RULED OUT. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT ON SIMILAR TYPE OF ISSUE THE ITAT COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. KUSUM DHAMANI VS. ADDL. CIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13 -06-2014 IN ITA ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 12 NO. 847/JP/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAD DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE REC ORD THERE IS NO SHRED OF DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS AND THEIR DISCLOSURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RETURNS OF B OTH THE ASSESSEE WHO HAPPEN TO BE HUSBAND AND WIFE, CARRYING ON THE BUSI NESS AS SISTER CONCERNS. SECTION 271D READ WITH SECTION 269SS WAS INTRODUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO DISCOURAGE THE MENACE OF BLACK MONEY . SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, THIS ELEMENT OF BLACK MON EY IS TOTALLY RULED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION IN OUR V IEW IS NOT UNREASONABLE AND IS BASED ON BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AL SO FOR PAYMENTS TO LABOURERS AND LENDERS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BEING GENUINE AND THE ASSESS EE HAVING OFFERED REASONABLE EXPLANATION JUSTIFYING THESE CASH TRANSA CTIONS, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271D IS NOT LEVIABLE. OUR VIE W IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'B LE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAINI MED ICAL STORE (SUPRA) WHICH IS FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA). THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON ABOVE, THE PENALTY IS DELETED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT COORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. KUSUM DHAMANI VS. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA) AN D ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY :- 1. ITO VS. YUGANT TRAVELS (P) LTD. (2016),50 ITR 328 (DELHI ITAT ) 2. DILLU CINE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (2002) TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 733 HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL. 3. CIT VS. IDHAYAN PUBLICATION LTD. (2006) TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 1251-MADRAS HIGH COURT ITA NO. 812/JP/2016 M/S. NARYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. VS. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 13 4. CIT VS. YESODHA (2015) 66 (II) ITCL 578 (CHENNAI TRIBUNAL) 5. CIT VS. AJANA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS (2003) 264 ITR 505 (RAJ) 6. SUDHA AGRO & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. CIT (2016) TAX PUBLISHER (DT) 2783 ( VISHAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL ) I DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 1.20 LACS (A. Y. 2007-08), RS. 1.60 LACS (A.Y. 2008-09) AND RS. 55,000 (A.Y. 2010-11) RESPEC TIVELY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS (SUPRA). THUS THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/0 1/2017 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17 /01/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. NARAYANJI ENCLAVE (P) LTD. JA IPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 812/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR