IT: Where revenue authorities concurrently held that there was no reasonable cause on part of assessee to take loan in cash in excess of Rs. 20 thousand inasmuch as story set up by assessee to arrange money in hurry to protect his agricultural land from being sold in open market, was not proved, impugned penalty order passed under section 271D for violating provisions of section 269SS, was to be upheld
■■■
[2013] 37 taxmann.com 390 (Allahabad)
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahak Singh
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax*
SUNIL AMBWANI AND SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2009†
AUGUST 12, 2013
Section 269SS, read with sections 271D and 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Loans or deposits, mode of taking or accepting - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee took loan from four parties in cash in excess of Rs. 20 thousand - Assessee's case was that he had mortgaged his agricultural land with a bank against loan taken from it - On his failure to repay loan amount, bank had initiated attachment proceedings - Thus, in order to protect his agricultural land from being sold in open market, assessee borrowed aforesaid loan in cash in hurry so as to repay bank loan - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's explanation and passed a penalty order under section 271D for violating provisions of section 269SS - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal confirmed penalty order - Whether since authorities below concurrently held that there was no reasonable cause inasmuch as story set up by assessee to arrange money in hurry to save honour of family was not proved, assessee would not get benefit of section 273B - Held, yes - Whether as a consequence, impugned penalty order was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of revenue]
FACTS
| ■ | The assessee took loan from four parties in cash of Rs. 2 lakh each. Since the transactions were above Rs. 20,000, the Assessing Officer opined that there was violation of provisions of section 269SS. | |
| ■ | The assessee explained that he had mortgaged his agricultural land with a bank against loan taken from it. On his failure to repay loan amount, the bank had initiated attachment proceedings. | |
| ■ | Thus, in order to protect his agricultural land from being sold in open market, assessee borrowed aforesaid land in cash in hurry so as to repay bank loan. | |
| ■ | The Assessing Officer rejected assessee's explanation and passed a penalty order under section 271D. | |
| ■ | The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal confirmed the penalty order. | |
| ■ | On appeal: |
HELD
| ■ | There is no dispute that in the present case the amount of loan was raised and was deposited in the bank to save the agricultural land from being sold in recovery proceedings. The assessee, however, could not satisfactorily give explanation for the alleged hurry in which he had to arrange the money to be deposited in bank for release of the property. | |
| ■ | The explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by either the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Tribunal. It was found that the assessee, in order to save himself from the penalty, offered a false explanation of the attachment of the agricultural property owned by his father, who was the guarantor of the loan. | |
| ■ | The recovery proceedings were not drawn nor any attachment had taken place to prove the urgency in which the money was sought to be arranged. The assessee had sufficient time to route the loans through banking channel. [Para 12] | |
| ■ | There is a difference between the expression 'genuine and bona fide transaction' and the 'reasonable cause' for not complying with the provisions of section 269SS to avoid penalty proceeding under section 271D. The transaction may be genuine and bona fide but may still violate the provisions of section 269SS. | |
| ■ | The Legislature has provided for relaxing the rigour of technical breach by giving an opportunity to the assessee to show that there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of section 269SS. In the present case, concurrent findings have been recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the assessee could not establish that he had to arrange the money in hurry to save the honour of family. | |
| ■ | The entire story of the urgency to raise loans set up by the assessee as a reasonable cause for non-compliance of section 269SS was not believed by the revenue authorities and, thus, even if the transaction was genuine and bona fide, the explanation for non-compliance of the provisions of section 269SS was not found acceptable. [Para 13] | |
| ■ | The findings, whether there was any reasonable cause for non-compliance of section 269SS, are findings of fact. The Tribunal is the last forum for recording such findings. In the present case, all the revenue authorities including the Tribunal have concurrently held that there was no reasonable cause inasmuch as the story set up by the assessee to arrange the money in hurry to save the honour of the family was not proved, the assessee would not get the benefit of section 273B. [Para 14] | |
| ■ | The assessee's appeal is thus dismissed. [Para 16] |
CASE REVIEW
Mahak Singh v. ITO [2010] 127 ITD 1 (Delhi) (para 16) affirmed.
CASES REFERRED TO
Asstt. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258/122 Taxman 574 (SC) (para 8), Chamundi Granites (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 258/122 Taxman 574 (SC) (para 8), Omec Engg. v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 599/[2008] 169 Taxman 158 (Jharkhand)(para 8) and Auto Piston Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 355 ITR 414 (Punj & Har.) (para 11).
Shubham Agrawal for the Appellant.
ORDER
1. We have heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee. Shri R.K. Upadhyay appears for the Income Tax department.
2. This Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) arises out of an order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", New Delhi dated 24.12.2008, by which the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee against the penalty under Section 271-D in respect of assessment year 2005-06, has been dismissed.
3. The appeal has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law:—
| "(i) | Whether the tribunal was justified in affirming the penalty under Section 271D of the Act, by relying upon the case of Dharmendra Textile Processor which was given under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which is not overridden by Section 273B of the Act and is hence distinguishable and inapplicable to the penalty under Section 271-D of the Act? | |
| (ii) | Whether imposition of penalty under Section 271-D of the Act can be mandatory and automatic for violation of Section 269SS of the Act in view of the judgment of Dharmendra Textile Processors when Section 273B provides for reasonable cause before imposition of penalty and has overriding effect over S.271D of the Act? | |
| (iii) | Whether the tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty under Section 271D of the Act merely on the technical mistake which has not resulted in any loss of revenue, and also in the absence of any finding that the transaction made by the assessee was not genuine or was malafide with the sole object of willful concealment. | |
| (iv) | Whether the tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty by giving the perverse finding and overlooking the evidences on record, which proves that the loan was taken by appellant in urgent need of money and hence there was reasonable cause as per Section 273B of the Act? | |
| (v) | Whether the tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty by overlooking the fact that the appellant has himself disclosed about the factum of taking of loan in cash for purchasing the land, and hence there can be no intention to evade tax, and thus the purpose for which Section 269SS has been enacted is not applicable in the present case." |
4. Shri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee submits that the assessee filed return of income declaring of Rs.1,75,796/ as on 1.8.2005. The return was processed under Section 143 (1). The assessee was assessed under Section 143 (3) on the returned income. During the course of proceeding it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had taken loans from four individuals in cash of Rs. 2 lacs each in violating Section 269SS of the Act, which provides all transactions above Rs.20,000/- to be made through banking channels. A show cause notice under Section 271-D was issued on 24.5.2007 to provide an opportunity of being heard. The assessee filed written submissions stating that the loan was raised in a very critical and unfavourable situation. The younger brother of the assessee was unemployed. He was involved in the company of bad characters of the area. The family members tried to settle him out of the native place. A company was floated by the family members putting him in the position of Managing Director for the purpose of carrying on business in Delhi. The company M/s A.S. Forex Pvt. Ltd having its head office at BMS-10, Plaza Cinema building, Cannaught Place, New Delhi raised a loan of Rs. 10 lacs from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The father of the assessee stood as guarantor against the loan. The agricultural land of the family was mortgaged by the father to secure the loan. Unfortunately the business of the company failed and the company could not repay the loan leading the bank to initiate recovery and attachment proceeding against the mortgaged property. The situation led the entire family into a crises. As soon as the attachment proceedings started and the notice of the attachment proceedings were served upon the family, the father of the assessee could not bear the shock and fell ill. The assessee rushed to his native place to see the father. The father requested the assessee to save his ancestral land. The assessee was very much attached with his father and also with the ancestral agricultural land. The attachment of the property would mean attachment of honour and self respect of the family in their native place. The compelling circumstances forced the assessee to take quick action to save the property. The assessee collected the money from all sources/relatives in a hurry having no time for clearance of bank draft/cheques, as the money had to be paid to the bank to save the property. The evidence of agriculture income/land of the four persons was given in the reply to be treated as exception to the proceeding for penalty.
5. The AO did not accept the explanation and imposed penalty by an order against which the assessee filed an appeal. In appeal after considering the submissions and the explanation all over again the Appellate Authority held as follows:—
'..Thus, in sum, I find that appellant, inspite of a detailed narration of circumstances including the emotional aspect, has utterly failed to convince me as to how these loan funds were urgently needed.
Once the cause regarding urgent need has not been specified; the cause loses the character of "reasonableness".
4.1 It is to further clarify that genuineness of the transaction does not have to do anything with the statutory requirement of Section 271D. In other words, even if loan transactions are fully genuine; still the assessee has to discharge his onus of explaining reasonableness of the circumstances if he obtained loans, in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-. I place reliance on the following case laws:—
| i. | Vishwanath Eaijal, 67 TTJ 443 - Penalty justified for accept deposit in cash, as no satisfactory explanation about urgency. | |
| ii. | Sunil Kasliwal, 2 SOT 596 (ITAT), | |
| iii. | Uday Chand 'ain, 79 TTJ 88 ITAT, Indore - Even if transaction is genuine, penalty can be justifiably levied if no satisfactory explanation regarding reasonableness of the cause. |
4.2 The appellant's submission contains umpteen number of case laws, but all of them emphasise on the reasonableness of the cause.
In the present case, as I have held above, the appellant's explanation regarding cause for obtaining cash loans, is unsatisfactory. There is nothing, which appellant has brought forth, to suggest that these loans had to be raised within hours or within a day or two. What the assessee has been able to lay down is only this much that bank dues had to be repaid for repossession of the ancestral property. But, by assessee's own admission, the bank had not set any deadline and that too, all of a sudden. The bank loan was pending for months; the assessee and his father knew of the arrangement to be made and the assessee had ample time to finalise the impugned loans.
Hypothetically for argument sake, even if we agree that the arrangement of fund was made few days or hours before any such deadline set by the bank; the assessee could very well have requested the bank that such and such arrangement has been made and, hence, attachment proceedings should be stayed for some days by which time loan cheques would be cleared in favour of the assessee/the bank.
4.3 Neither any such deadline was set, nor there is any evidence of any such urgency.
Before I part, I should mention that the appellant has mentioned about ignorance of assessee about the provisions of Section 271D read with Section 269SS; but this mentioning is only as a passing reference. In other words, it is not assessee's case that he was unaware of the impugned provisions and, hence, should be given benefit of doubt. Had it been so, there was no need harping, in such great detail and also with emotional fervour, about the urgent requirement of the fund for purpose of repaying to the bank. Then it would have been a simple case of ignorance of provisions and, thus asking for benefit on the ground of ignorance of law.
It is clear to me that ignorance of legal provision has been mentioned by the appellant's counsel, as an alternative argument, in a passing manner and without being sincere about it.
4.4. It is high time that such cash loans are viewed adversely, otherwise the purpose of legal provisions like section 269SS and 271D of the Act would never be fulfilled.
4.5 In sum, I hold that as the assessee failed to explain any reasonable cause for raising the impugned cash loans; the Addl. CIT was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271D of the Act.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.'
6. The ITAT in the second appeal filed by the assessee once again considered the explanation and did not find it to be reasonable. The findings of the ITAT in paragraphs 13, 14 and 18 of the order dismissing the appeal are quoted as follows:—
"13. On the contrary the assessing officer while imposing penalty under section 271-D of the Act has stated that the assessee purchased lands for Rs.6 lacs and sources of investment was explained from loans taken from relatives. This fact is evident from the return of income also. Sh. Mahak Singh, the assessee and Sh. Neeraj Singh, his brother both as Second Parties to purchase transaction paid Rs.4,50,000/- (3/4th value) and Rs.1,50,000/- (1/4th value) respectively before Dy Registrar, Meerut on 2.8.2004 to Sh. Pawan Singh, the First Party. The assessing officer has further noted from the copy of the sale deed that the land was free from all encumbrances. These findings of fact have not been rebutted by the assessee neither before Ld CIT (A) nor before us. Further as per the certificate issued by the bank, the lands owned by Sh. Pawan Singh given as security to the Oriental Bank of Commerce against CC (hyp) No.3813 of Rs.8,00,000/- and term loan a/c No.LN-8390 of Rs.2 lacs were released on 11.08.204. From these facts it is clear that the lands were transferred in the name of assessee first and the money was paid to bank subsequently after lapse of period of almost nine days. Thus the contention of the assessee that the assessee had to arrange funds in order to save life his father and the respect and honour of the family in order to save the ancestral property from attachment is not borne out from records.
14. From the facts mentioned above it may be noted that all the four persons who have advanced loans are assessed to tax and enjoyed income from pension or profession. The assessee is also an educated person employed in State Govt. Service as Junior Engineer. Second proviso to section 269SS provides that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit where the person from whom the loan or deposit is taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit is taken or accepted are both having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under this Act. The income of the assessee as well as of all the four persons is chareable to tax under IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee's case does not fall under the exceptions provided in second proviso to section 269-SS of the Act. The assessee fails on this counts also.
18. Thus from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Km. A.B. Shanthi, it clear that where there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account-payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. In the case before as discussed above the urgency of loan has not been proved with the evidence. The bona fide reasons have not been demonstrated with evidence. The assessee after having been caught has taken a stand that he arranged the money in hurry to save the honour of the family and his father, which is contrary to the facts, as stated above. In our considered view, the assessee has not proved that there existed urgency constituting a reasonable cause for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. All the four persons had bank accounts enjoying pension income or professional income and the assessee himself is a salaried person. The money could have been transferred to his account for which there was sufficient time. It is also a settled law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (supra) that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability like penalty u/s 271D of the Act. In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, penalty under Section 271-D of the Act is exigible. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) confirming the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
19. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed."
7. Shri Shubham Agarwal submits that Section 273-B, in an exception to Section 269-SS, and provides that no penalty is imposable on the person or assessee as the case may be for any failure referred to in the said provisions (including Section 269-SS), if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. He submits that the assessee had filed voluntary return and disclosed the loans, which were genuine and bonafide transactions. The return was accepted. In the penalty proceeding the assessee had given detailed reasons and circumstances in which the loans had to be arranged in a hurry to save the family property from attachment. The authorities have not disbelieved the transactions nor have returned any finding that the transactions were not genuine and bonafide. In the circumstances, they did not have authority to levy penalty under Section 271-B. He relies on the objects and reasons for inserting Chapter XX-B by the Finance Act, 1984; Departmental Circular no.387 dated 6.7.1984 as well as the objects and reasons of the amendments regarding the modes of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits and repayment of certain deposits (The Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. The object of introducing Section 269SS, which has been inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1989 and has undergone amendments by Finance Act, 1985 w.e.f. 1.4.1986 and by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988) w.e.f. 1.4.1989, is given as below:—
"(3258) Prohibition against taking or accepting certain loans and deposits in cash (The Finance Act, 1984)
32.1 Unaccounted cash found in the course of searches carried out by the Income-tax Department is often explained by taxpayers as representing loans taken from or deposits made by various persons. Unaccounted income is also brought into the books of account in the form of such loans and deposits, and taxpayers are also able to get confirmatory letters from such persons in support of their explanation.
32.2 With a view to countering this device, which enables taxpayers to explain away unaccounted cash or unaccounted deposits, the Finance Act, 1984, has inserted a new section 269SS in the Income-tax Act debarring persons from taking or accepting, after 30th June, 1984, from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit is Rs. 10,000 or more. This prohibition will also apply in cases where on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), and the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid is Rs.10,000 or more. The prohibition will also apply in cases where the amount of such loan or deposit, together with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date on which such loan or deposit is proposed to be taken is Rs.10,000 or more."
8. Shri Shubham Agarwal has relied on Asstt. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258/122 Taxman 574 (SC) and Chamundi Granites (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 258/122 Taxman 574 (SC) and a judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Omec Engg. v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 599/[2008] 169 Taxman 158 (Jharkhand). In Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra) the Supreme Court explained the object and purpose of inserting Section 269SS and the Scheme of the Act for levying penalty under Sections 271D, 273B, and 276DD and while upholding the vires of Section 269SS, which was challenged being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, held as follows:—
"Therefore, we do not think that section 269SS is either violative of article 14 of the Constitution, or it was enacted without legislative competence.
The next contention urged by counsel for the appellant is that original section 276DD is draconian in nature as penalty imposed for violation of section 269SS is imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine equal to the amount of loan or deposit. This section was subsequently omitted and a new section 271D was enacted. The penalty of imprisonment was deleted in the new section. The new section 271D provides only for fine equal to the amount of loan or deposit taken or accepted.
It is important to note that another provision, namely section 273B was also incorporated which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 271D, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure and if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure to take a loan otherwise than by account-payee cheque or account-payee demand draft, then the penalty may not be levied. Therefore, undue hardship is very much mitigated by the inclusion of section 273B in the Act. If there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account-payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power.
In that view of the matter, we do not think that section 269SS or 271D or the earlier section 276DD is unconstitutional on the ground that it was draconian or exproprietory in nature.
In view of the foregoing, Criminal Appeal No.601 of 1992 is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Civil Appeal No.4478 of 2000 is without any merit and dismissed, however, without costs."
9. In Omec Engg. (supra) the Jharkhand High Court considered the difference between the words "reasonable cause" in Section 271D and held as follows:—
"In the case of CIT v. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249, a Bench of the Calcutta High Court while considering the provisions of section 271 (1) (c) following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd.'s case (1972) 83 ITR 26, observed that it is not mandatory under section 271 that a penalty must be imposed in every case.
The words "reasonable Cause" have not been defined under the Act but they could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression "sufficient cause". Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words "reasonable cause" would mean a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee. "Reasonable cause" obviously means a cause which prevents a reasonable man of ordinary prudence acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. Before imposition of penalty under Section 271, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied, not arbitrarily but judiciously, that the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to comply with the provisions.
In the instant case, as noticed above, there is no finding of the assessing authority, the appellate authority or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of the provisions of Section 269SS was not a genuine transaction. On the contrary, the return filed by the assessee was accepted after scrutiny under section 143 (3) of the Act. Further, there is no finding of the appellate authority that the transaction in breach of the aforesaid provisions made by the assessee was mala fide and with the sole object to disclose the concealed or undisclosed money. The authorities have proceeded on the basis that breach of condition provided under section 269SS of the Act shall lead to penal consequences. In our view in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty merely on technical mistake committed by the assessee, which has not resulted in any loss of revenue, shall be harsh and cannot be sustained in law.
After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently we hold that imposition of penalty under section 271D against the assessee cannot be sustained in law."
10. Shri Shubham Agarwal submits that it was established by the assessee on record that he was in great hurry to arrange for money to save the honour of the family. The assessee wanted to avoid attachment and sale of the agricultural land and thus he had arranged the loans in cash. He submits that even if the first two transactions, in which there was a little time, are not accepted, at least the remaining two transactions, which were close to the payments made for releasing the property and which was also evidenced by the letter of the Manager of the Bank proving the deposits to release the property, was a reasonable cause for which the penalty could not be levied under Section 273B of the Act.
11. Shri R.K. Upadhyay, appearing for the revenue states that even if there is no dispute about the genuineness and bonafides of the transactions, the breach of Section 269SS invites penalty. There is a difference between the genuine and bonafide transactions and reasonable cause for not complying with Section 269SS. The assessee's return was accepted and the loan amount was not included in the returned income. The penalty proceedings were, however, initiated for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS, which have been added not only for the purpose of tapping the undisclosed income during search and seizure operations in which ordinarily a defence was taken of the cash loans, but also to bring about a financial discipline in the business and trade for maintaining transparency and accountability in the transactions. He submits that penalty for non-compliance of provisions of Section 269SS can be avoided if it is proved under Section 273B that there was reasonable cause for failing to comply with Section 269SS. He has relied on Auto Piston Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 355 ITR 414 (Punj & Har.), in which the findings recorded by the Income Tax Authorities, that there were no such facts which would constitute 'reasonable cause' under Section 271D, were held to be findings of facts.
12. We have perused the findings and have examined the provisions of the Act as well as decisions cited at the bar. There is no dispute that in the present case the amount of loan was raised and was deposited in the bank to save the agricultural land from being sold in recovery proceedings. The assessee, however, could not satisfactorily give explanation for the alleged hurry in which he had to arrange the money to be deposited in bank for release of the property. The explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by either AO, CIT (A) or ITAT. It was found that the assessee, in order to save himself from the penalty, offered a false explanation of the attachment of the agricultural property owned by his father, who was the guarantor of the loan. The recovery proceedings were not drawn nor any attachment had taken place to prove the urgency in which the money was sought to be arranged. The assessee had sufficient time to route the loans through banking channel.
13. There is a difference between the expressions "genuine and bonafide transaction" and the "reasonable cause" for not complying with the provisions of Section 269SS to avoid penalty proceeding under Section 271D. The transaction may be genuine and bonafide but may still violate the provisions of Section 269SS. The legislature has provided for relaxing the rigour of technical breach by giving an opportunity to the assessee to show that there was a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of Section 269SS. In the present case, concurrent findings have been recorded by the AO, CIT (A) and ITAT that the assessee could not establish that he had to arrange the money in hurry to save the honour of the family. The entire story of the urgency to raise loans set up by the assessee as a reasonable cause for non-compliance of Section 269SS was not believed by the Income Tax authorities and thus even if the transaction was genuine and bonafide, the explanation for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 269SS was not found acceptable.
14. The findings, whether there was any reasonable cause for non-compliance of Section 269SS are findings of fact. The Tribunal is the last forum for recording such findings. In the present case, since all the Income Tax authorities including the Tribunal have concurrently held that there was no reasonable cause inasmuch as the story set up by the assessee to arrange the money in hurry to save the honour of the family was not proved, the assessee would not get the benefit of Section 273B of the Act.
15. We do not find that any of the questions framed by the assessee in view of the findings of fact recorded by the authorities arise for consideration in this appeal.
16. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
Regards
Prarthana Jalan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment