Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune

Darshana Franky Thakkar, Latur vs Assessee on 31 December, 2013

         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE

          BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV,
                   JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
           SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                      ITA No.1839/PN/2012
                          (A.Y.: 2007-08)

Smt. Darshana Franky Thakkar
Prop. Of Kutch Traders
Vrundavan Dham,
Vardhaman Chambers, Latur

PAN: AEQPT2524C                                        Appellant
                               Vs.
Addl. CIT, Range 3, Nanded                             Respondent

                Appellant by :       Shri M.K. Kulkarni
                Respondent by :      Shri S.P. Walimbe
                Date of Hearing:     31.12.2013
                Date of order :      31.12.2013

                             ORDER

PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [short CIT(A)] Aurangabad, dated 30.08.2012 on the following grounds.

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-Aurganabad was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee had contravened the provisions of S. 269SS of the Act by accepting the loans in cash?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below misdirected themselves in holding that the loans had been obtained by the assessee otherwise by account payee cheques when in fact and law the said amount was not a loan as it had no attributes of loan transactions 2

3. Whether the CIT(A) was required to appreciate the provisions of S.273B of the Act as the assessee accepted the said amount which were not without reasonable cause?

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in view of grounds of appeal listed at Gr. No. 1 to 3 above the penalty under S.271-D was not exigible and therefore penalty levied be quashed.

5. The appellant craves/leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.

2. The assessee is an individual engaged in trading the business under the name and style of M/s. Kutch Traders. During the year under appeal, the assessee has accepted loan of Rs.1,31,000/- and Rs.1,81,000/- on various dates from Shri Harishbhai Jethamal Thakkar and Shri Pingaleshwar Mahadeo Thakkar. The Assessing Officer has held that the above payments were received in contravention of section 269SS and has levied penalty u/s.271D of Rs.3,12,000/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The same has been opposed before us on behalf of assessee. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee has not contravened the provisions of section 269SS of I.T. Act by accepting the loan in cash because the same was done for business exigencies as defense of provisions of section 271D of I.T. Act as the assessee has received the loan in cash for a reasonable cause i.e. business exigency. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the authorities below.

2.1 After going through the rival submissions and material on record, we find and undisputed that the assessee has accepted that loan of Rs.1,31,000/- and Rs.1,81,000/- on various dates from Shri Harishbhai Jethamal Thakkar and Shri Pingaleshwar Mahadeo Thakkar. The contention of the assessee has been that loan taken from relatives for business exigency and hence not covered by provisions of section 269SS. However, the assessee has not established the business exigency as claimed by her 3 before authorities below. So, the assessee could not discharge her burden for existence of reasonable cause for accepting the loan in cash in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of I.T. Act. In view of above, the Assessing Officer has justified in levying penalty u/s.271D of Rs.3,12,000/-, which needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.

3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2013.

         Sd/-                              Sd/-
    (R.K. PANDA)                 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV)
 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pune, Dated: 31st December 2013
GCVSR

Copy to:-
    1)      Assessee
    2)      Department
    3)      The CIT(A), Aurangabad
    4)      The CIT, Aurangabad
    5)      The DR, "B" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune.
    6)      Guard File

                                            By Order
     //True copy//

                                      Senior Private Secretary,
                                           I.T.A.T., Pune