Appellant In All The Tax Case Appeals v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Taxpondicherry Rangepondicherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA P.Muthukaruppan .. Appellant in all the Tax Case Appeals -vs- The Joint Commissioner of Income TaxPondicherry RangePondicherry Respondent in all ..the Tax Case Appeals Memorandum of Tax Case Appeals under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, ''A'' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.220 to228/Mds/2014 dated 29.5.2014 for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. Against the Ordr of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai -34 dated 23.12.2013 inI.T.A.No.605/13-14/A-VI, 609/13-14/A-VI, 607/13-14/A-VI, 611/13-14/A-VI, 606/13-14/A-VI, 608/13-14/A-VI,610/13-14/A-VI, 612/13-14/AV-I,613/13-14/A-VI respectively for the assessment Years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2009-10, 2011-2012, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012,2012-2013 respectively. Against the penatly order passed by the JointCommissioner of Income Tax made in CR.No.34/JCIT/PDy/271 D/12-13 dated18.06.2012. (Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.) The appellant-assessee, aggrieved by the impugned common orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai inI.T.A.Nos.220 to 228/Mds/2014 dated 29.5.2014 for the assessment years2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively, has broughtall these tax case appeals raising the following substantial questionsof law:-https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in upholding the orders of the respondent inlevying penalty u/s 271D of the Act for acceptingloan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- within thepurview of the provisions in section 269SS of theAct for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12even though the transactions were admittedlygenuine and bona fide? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in upholding the orders of the respondent inlevying penalty u/s 271E of the Act for repaymentof loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- within thepurview of the provisions in section 269T of theAct for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13even though the transactions were admittedlygenuine and bona fide?(3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct inlaw in sustaining the penalties imposed u/s 271D &271E of the Act by overlooking the fact ofemergency borrowings in cash and the repayments inrelation thereto both on the commercial/business aswell as personal compulsions/ reasons, therebyestablishing the reasonable/sufficient cause ascontemplated in section 273B of the Act and furtherthereby vitiating the respondent's action inproceeding in the matter of levy of such penaltiesfor the assessment years under consideration on thefacts and in the circumstances of the case?” 2. The issue raised in all these appeals is pertaining to thelevy of penalty under Sections 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act forthe assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13respectively on the appellant-assessee for violation of the provisionsof Sections 269SS & 269T of the Income Tax Act, namely, accepting andrepaying loan exceeding Rs.20,000/- in cash from/to the money lender,Mr.A.Kannan, Proprietor of M/s Vadamalayan Finance without assigningproper reasons and justification. 2. The issue raised in all these appeals is pertaining to thelevy of penalty under Sections 271D & 271E of the Income Tax Act forthe assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13respectively on the appellant-assessee for violation of the provisionsof Sections 269SS & 269T of the Income Tax Act, namely, accepting andrepaying loan exceeding Rs.20,000/- in cash from/to the money lender,Mr.A.Kannan, Proprietor of M/s Vadamalayan Finance without assigningproper reasons and justification. 3. Arguing on the substantial questions of law, Mr.S.Sridhar,learned counsel for the appellant in all the appeals, heavilyassailing the impugned order, submitted that the appellant receivedshow cause notices under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Income TaxAct dated 16.12.2011 from the assessing authority, namely, JointCommissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry Range, Pondicherry callingupon him to submit his explanation. On receipt of the same, he filedhis reply dated 11.1.2012 seeking adjournment. Accepting the saidrequest for adjournment, he was also issued with another notice dated1.2.2012, which was served upon him on 6.2.2012. Again he sent anotherletter dated 16.2.2012 seeking adjournment on the ground that a closeassociate and senior citizen of his community/mentor in businesspassed away. On the basis of the said request also, the matter stoodhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/adjourned to 23.2.2012. Therefore, fresh notices were again issued to him on 16.2.2012, 6.3.2012 & 17.4.2012 and the assessee sent hisletters dated 23.2.2012, 15.3.2012 & 19.4.2012 seeking adjournment.However, when he sent his Chartered Accountant Mr.Jayachander toattend the hearing on 14.5.2012, sadly, for the reasons best known tohim, it appears that he has not attended the hearing, as a result, theassessing authority has erroneously passed the impugned order holdinghim guilty under Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act,consequently, penalty under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income TaxAct for each of the assessment years was levied. Aggrieved by thesame, he preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), the appellate authority, inter alia, raising the followinggrounds:- ''(i) The object of introducing S.269SS is toeradicate the evil practice of making false entriesin the account books and later giving explanationfor the same. The alleged transactions are allgenuine cash transactions and hence not violatingthe objective of the statute. (ii) The learned JCIT failed to appreciate thefact that the transactions are all genuine and bonafide and the appellant could not get the loan byaccount payee cheque or demand draft as the lenderinsisted on transacting in cash and the said facthas been confirmed by the lender.'' When the appellant has specifically taken a ground that thetransactions were all genuine and bona fide, inasmuch as he was unableto get the loan by account payee cheque or demand draft, as the lenderinsisted on transacting in cash and the said fact was also affirmed bythe lender, it was not open to the assessing authority to turn downthe justification of reasonable cause shown by the assessee, in orderto exercise his discretionary power under Section 273B of the IncomeTax Act. In the case on hand, no doubt the appellant, for the faultcommitted by his Chartered Accountant in not appearing before theassessing authority, however, has brought this fact to the notice ofthe appellate authority, making it clear that the transactions are allgenuine and bona fide, therefore the appellate authority, in allfairness, ought to have accepted the grounds and justification takenby the appellant, but, unfortunately and erroneously, the order passedby the assessing authority has been confirmed by the appellateauthority, he pleaded. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant again went before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal again taking a specific and conspicuousground that the whole transactions were done by cash only, namely, nocheque or draft came into play. Arguing further the learned counselfurther pleaded that when the appellant was under the compulsion toreceive cash and on receipt of the cash amount as loan, was alsocompelled to repay the same by way of cash, it shows clearly thatthere was a bona fide transaction, therefore, that should be a betterhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/acceptable foundation for the Tribunal to accept the case of the assessee for exercise of its discretionary power to set aside thepenalty orders imposed under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Act. Butsadly, the Tribunal also, having received justification from theappellant, once again wrongly confirmed the orders passed by theauthorities below, as a result, he was constrained to come to thisCourt by way of the present tax case appeals. The learned counsel forthe appellant further submitted that when the appellant has admittedlyreceived the cash amounts in question from the financier, as contendedby the other side, during the course of investigation, the financierhimself has deposed saying that he has been conducting the business bylending money only in cash, while that being the admitted position ofthe financier, till date, the department has not proceeded against thefinancier. In an identical circumstance, in respect of the very sameassessee, when a similar issue was brought to the notice of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Mr.Sridhar further submitted thatthe very same explanation and the ground taken by the appellant wasaccepted by the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.1820 to 1825/Mds/2013 dated31.10.2013 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, on that basis,the penalty imposed against the appellant was set aside. While thatbeing the case, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the case ofthe appellant. 5. Adding further, he has continued to argue that when theappellant was at the mercy of the financier, for not submitting areply before the assessing authority, he cannot be penalised,therefore, it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded to theassessing authority, as the appellant has got a genuine and bona fidecase for exercise of the discretionary power under Section 273-B ofthe Act by the assessing authority. He has also cited the followingjudgments in support of his submissions:- (i)Commissioner of Income Tax v. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd., (2010)326 ITR 31 (P&H); Further contending that when the appellant at no point of time hascommitted any error, as he received cash from the financier and thisalso has been accepted as a genuine transaction, the impugned orderpassed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Concluding his arguments, reliance was placed on thejudgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163,the learned counsel submitted that in an almost identical situation,on a challenge to the family transaction entered between twoindependent assessees based on an act of casualness, the Punjab andHaryana High Court came to the conclusion that when the assesseesatisfactorily established the reasonable cause under Section 273-B ofthe Act, he must be deemed to have established sufficient cause fornot invoking the penalty proceedings under Sections 271D & 271E of theAct against him. Since the observation and the ratio decided by thePunjab and Haryana High Court clearly applies to the case of theappellant in this case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal isliable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned counsel forthe respondent-Department, briefly indicating the non-cooperation ofthe assessee/appellant before the assessing authority, submitted thatthe instant appeals cannot be entertained on merits and they deserveto be dismissed. He has further submitted that when the appellant wasissued with the show cause notices dated 16.12.2011 under Sections271D and 271E of the Act, received by him on the same date,immediately thereupon, he sent a letter dated 11.1.2012 seekingadjournment. The assessing authority, accepting his request, grantedadjournment. Again on receipt of another notice dated 1.2.2012, byanother letter dated 6.2.2012, the appellant sought adjournment on theground that one of his close associate and senior citizen belonging tohis community passed away. Accepting the said reason, the matter wasonce again adjourned and a fresh notice dated 16.2.2012 was issued tothe appellant on 17.2.2012. Again when the matter was processed, therepresentative of the appellant M/s.Ganesan and Company, CharteredAccountants filed adjournment letter on 23.2.2012. The appellant, whotook several adjournments, did not come forward to submit anyexplanation for receiving the aforesaid amounts in cash. Therefore,when the appellant, was given all reasonable and fair opportunityrepeatedly by the assessing authority, the appellant miserably failedto show reasonable cause before the assessing authority to exercisehis power under Section 273-B of the Act. In such circumstance,after inviting an order at the hands of the assessing authority, it isnot open to him to challenge the said order either before theappellate authority, the Tribunal or this Court on merits. When theappellant has miserably failed to make use of the repeatedopportunities given, he is not entitled to rely upon the observationor the ratio laid down by either this Court or the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court in Sunil Kumar Goel's case. In all those cases, theassessee therein appeared before the assessing authority at the firstinstance and satisfied the assessing authority for having received thecash amount. But in the present case, the assessee did not explain hiscause or represent his case before the authority. Therefore, it isnot a good case for this Court to entertain the present appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. We find more merit in the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the respondent-Department. For answering the issue, itwill be useful to extract Sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, whichread as follows:- ''Mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits.269SS. No person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984,take or accept from any other person (hereafter in thissection referred to as the depositor), any loan or depositotherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payeebank draft if,— (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregateamount of such loan and deposit ; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit,any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such personfrom the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repaymenthas fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amountremaining unpaid ; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause(a) together with the amount or the aggregate amountreferred to in clause (b), is [twenty] thousand rupees ormore: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not applyto any loan or deposit taken or accepted from, or any loanor deposit taken or accepted by,—(a) Government ; (b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank ; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State orProvincial Act ; (d) any Government company84 as defined in section 617 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause(a) together with the amount or the aggregate amountreferred to in clause (b), is [twenty] thousand rupees ormore: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not applyto any loan or deposit taken or accepted from, or any loanor deposit taken or accepted by,—(a) Government ; (b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank ; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State orProvincial Act ; (d) any Government company84 as defined in section 617 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (e) such other institution, association or body or class ofinstitutions, associations or bodies which the CentralGovernment may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,notify85 in this behalf in the Official Gazette : [Provided further that the provisions of this section shallnot apply to any loan or deposit where the person from whomthe loan or deposit is taken or accepted and the person bywhom the loan or deposit is taken or accepted are bothhaving agricultural income and neither of them has anyincome chargeable to tax under this Act.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— [(i) “banking company” means a company to which the BankingRegulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies and includes anybank or banking institution referred to in section 51 ofthat Act ;] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/(ii) “co-operative bank” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of1949) ; (iii) “loan or deposit” means loan or deposit of money.] Mode of repayment of certain loans or deposits269T. No branch of a banking company or a co-operative bankand no other company or co-operative society and no firm orother person shall repay any loan or deposit made with itotherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payeebank draft drawn in the name of the person who has made theloan or deposit if— (a) the amount of the loan or deposit together with theinterest, if any, payable thereon, or(b) the aggregate amount of the loans or deposits held bysuch person with the branch of the banking company or co-operative bank or, as the case may be, the other company orco-operative society or the firm, or other person either inhis own name or jointly with any other person on the date ofsuch repayment together with the interest, if any, payableon such loans or deposits, is twenty thousand rupees ormore: Provided that where the repayment is by a branch of abanking company or cooperative bank, such repayment may alsobe made by crediting the amount of such loan or deposit tothe savings bank account or the current account (if any)with such branch of the person to whom such loan or deposithas to be repaid : [Provided further that nothing contained in this sectionshall apply to repayment of any loan or deposit taken oraccepted from—(i) Government; (ii) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank;(iii) any corporation established by a Central, State orProvincial Act;(iv) any Government company as defined in section 617 of theCompanies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);(v) such other institution, association or body or class ofinstitutions, associations or bodies which the CentralGovernment may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette.]Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—(i) “banking company” shall have the meaning assigned to itin clause (i) of the Explanation to section 269SS;(ii) “co-operative bank” shall have the meaning assigned toit in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of1949); (iii) “loan or deposit” means any loan or deposit of moneyhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/which is repayable after notice or repayable after a period and, in the case of a person other than a company, includesloan or deposit of any nature.]'' (iii) “loan or deposit” means any loan or deposit of moneyhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/which is repayable after notice or repayable after a period and, in the case of a person other than a company, includesloan or deposit of any nature.]'' 9. The provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T mandate that noamount should be received in cash in excess of the amount prescribedthereunder. The statement of the financier produced by the counsel forthe Department and also relied upon by the appellant would be a caseof money lending business by the financier repeatedly indulging inviolation of the provisions of Sections 269SS & 269T of the Act. It isone thing to say that there was a compulsion on the part of thefinancier. Nevertheless, factually we find that the assessee has beentaking loan and paying it in cash in total violation of the saidprovisions. The test insofar as non-levy of penalty under Sections271D and 271E is established by Department. For invoking Section 273Bthe appellant has to establish a reasonable cause and satisfy therequirement therein. In the instant case, the assessing authority, theappellate authority as well as the Tribunal found that there is noreasonable cause. In any event, by record there is no explanationoffered at the first instance by the assessee. It was argued beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that there were some reasonsfor not complying with the requirement of law. It was found that theconduct of the assessee was in breach of the said provisions on morethan one occasion and there was no justification of any businessinterest or exigency to violate the provisions of Section 269SS and269T. It is not good to say that the financier compelled him to takeloan by cash and repay by cash. That would not justify a case ofreasonable cause. We wish to clarify that none of the decisions citedby the learned counsel for the appellant would show that Sections271D and 271E cannot be applied to the present case. In all thosedecisions, there was an element of bona fide justification shown bythe assessee in respect of the genuineness of the transactions andthat the said transactions were never doubted by the Revenue at anypoint of time. 10. But in the present case, the entire transactions tookplace in Pondicherry, a major city and there appears to be no reasonas to why the assessee should not have repaid the amount in cheque ordemand draft (i.e.) through bank, assuming for a moment he receivedthe loan in cash. The entire transaction between the assessee, afinancier and the financier, who was also financing large number ofpersons, is apparently to evade the provisions of the tax authorities,which came to light after a survey was conducted and some documentsand records were seized. Therefore, it is a case of infraction of lawand it cannot be said to be a mere technical or venial breach. Indeed,it is a clear case of prejudice caused to the Revenue, because thenature of transactions conducted by the financier with the assesseeand third parties are clearly not in accordance with the provisions ofthe Act. In one statement the financier clearly states that he used toconduct the money lending business in the names of third parties. Theassessee on his part has been repeatedly, for every assessment year,conducted the business in the same manner by receiving and repayinghttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the loan amount in cash. Hence, the same cannot be called as a bona fide transaction and there is a reasonable cause. As a matter offact, the conduct of the parties is more important to exercise thediscretion under Section 273B of the Act. As the assessee has notpassed the test of reasonable cause showing his bona fides, theprovisions of Section 273B do not get attracted, more so, in a case ofno explanation offered in spite of giving repeated chances therefor.On the facts in issue before us, there appears to be no justificationto claim the benefit of Section 273B of the Act. fide transaction and there is a reasonable cause. As a matter offact, the conduct of the parties is more important to exercise thediscretion under Section 273B of the Act. As the assessee has notpassed the test of reasonable cause showing his bona fides, theprovisions of Section 273B do not get attracted, more so, in a case ofno explanation offered in spite of giving repeated chances therefor.On the facts in issue before us, there appears to be no justificationto claim the benefit of Section 273B of the Act. 11. In the present case, as mentioned above, the appellant hasbeen charged for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS andSection 269T of the Act on the ground that when a survey was conductedunder Section 133A in the business premises of Mr.A.Kannan, Proprietorof Vadamalayan Finance on 8.10.2011, it was found that Mr.A.Kannan wasdoing money lending business, who chose to give loans to only selectedgroup of persons after deducting interest for ten months; that thewhole transaction was done in cash only, namely, no cheque or draftcame into play; that the appellant was also found as one of theborrowers, as he received cash loan of Rs.15 lakhs on 21.6.2007 andthe same was found to be repaid in cash for the assessment year 2008-09. For the assessment year 2009-10, the appellant received Rs.20lakhs on 23.4.2008 and he repaid the same in cash. In the sameassessment year on 7.3.2009, he had received another sum of Rs.20lakhs, but there is no proof of repayment. For the assessment year2010-11, on 9.1.2010, he received cash loan of Rs.20 lakhs and he hadrepaid the same in cash. For the assessment year 2011-12, theappellant took cash loan of Rs.20 lakhs on 3.11.2010 and had repaid asum of Rs.23 lakhs in cash. Again during the assessment year 2012-13,he had repaid a sum of Rs.13 lakhs in cash. In view of the abovetransactions, the appellant was issued with the show cause noticeunder Sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The sworn statement recordedfrom Mr.A.Kannan, Prop. of M/s Vadamalayan Finance, in response to thesummons issued under Section 131 on 21.9.2011 shows that the financierhas admittedly lent a huge amount of Rs.74 lakhs to various parties bycash and he has also admitted that he had lent Rs.2 lakhs to theappellant. When a specific question was posed to him as to whether hewas doing the money lending business by cheque or cash, he hasanswered that till then he has been doing the money lending businessonly by cash payment and cash repayment. Again Mr.Kannan, Prop. ofM/s Vadamalayan Finance has also further admitted that he has beendoing money lending business for the last 30 years. The appellanthaving taken loan amount by cash in contravention of the provisions ofSection 269SS and repaying the same by cash in contravention of theprovisions of Section 269T, cannot seek the support of Section 273B.The appellant has not explained as to the urgency, compulsion or anyother important circumstance for the breach and that too repeatedly.As a matter of fact, Section 273B shows that no penalty shall beimposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for anyfailure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that therewas reasonable cause for the said failure. In the case on hand, asmentioned above, when the appellant was issued with the show causehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/notice under Sections 271D & 271E on 16.12.2011, having sent a letter dated 11.1.2012 seeking adjournment, was issued with another noticedated 1.2.2012. Again sending another letter dated 16.2.2012 soughtanother adjournment for one more week on the ground that a closeassociate and senior citizen of his community passed away on16.2.2012. Once again after receiving fresh notice dated 16.2.2012and another notice dated 24.2.2012, the appellant finally sentMr.V.Jayachander, Chartered Accountant, who also filed adjournmentletter on 24.7.2012. When the said Mr.V.Jayachander, CharteredAccountant appeared on 11.5.2012, thereafter, sadly, no one appeared.That apart, the assessee had not even filed any reply nor even theparticulars called for vide order sheet entry dated 11.5.2012 andletter dated 2.5.2012. In the above background, taking into accountthe conduct of the assessee, the assessing authority, after givingrepeated reasonable opportunities, finding no explanation whatsoever,was unable to exercise his discretion under Section 273B andaccordingly imposed the penalty under Sections 271D & 271E of the Act.This finding has been affirmed by both the appellate authority and theTribunal. When the finding of facts have been reached by all theauthorities below, taking note of the conduct of the appellant, whowas given sufficient opportunities by the assessing authority, we areunable to accept the prayer for remanding the matter to any of theauthorities below. We are also not inclined to accept the subsequentexplanation. 12. One another argument of Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel forthe appellant placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in thecase of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balaji Traders, (2008) 303 ITR312 (Mad), which held that if (i) there was business exigency forcingthe assessee to take cash loans for the purpose of honouring thecommitment viz., issuance of cheque on a particular date; (ii) thecreditors were genuine persons and the transactions were never doubtedby the authorities below; and (iii) there was no revenue loss to theState exchequer and satisfied that the assessee has shown reasonablecause for the above transactions can be applied to this case, isnot tenable. The assessee in that case had satisfied the authority byshowing reasonable cause for the above transactions that there was abusiness exigency which forced them to take cash loans for the purposeof honouring the commitment. As highlighted above, in the presentcase, after taking repeated adjournments before the assessingauthority, the appellant-assessee neither came forward to file anyreply nor even bothered to take part in the enquiry to explain thegenuineness of the transaction. In addition thereto, in the case onhand, as the financier has been doing money lending business for 30long years by giving and taking back loan amounts only through cash,there has been a huge revenue loss to the exchequer. It is not acase of business exigency. Hence the contention that there was norevenue loss to the exchequer is not tenable plea. Therefore, in ourconsidered view, the said judgment is not applicable to the presentcase. 13. Similarly, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Highhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Kumar Goel, 13. Similarly, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Highhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 relied upon by the learned counsel for theappellant is also inapplicable to the present case, since in the saidcase, the Tribunal reached its conclusion by holding that areasonable cause was shown by the assessee, for the failure to complywith the provisions of Section 269T of the Act, at the very firstinstance before the assessing authority. In the present case, asmentioned above, the appellant has not submitted any explanationwhatsoever. Similarly, in yet another judgment of the Division Benchof this Court, in which one of us R.Sudhakar,J., who was speaking forthe Court, has held clearly that the assessee therein had shownreasonable cause for availing loan from the agriculturists by properlyplacing the genuineness of the creditors who have been verified andthe said transaction being found incapable of any suspicion by theauthorities, hence, on that score, this Court refused to interferewith the order of the Tribunal, however, in the present case, as therewas no explanation offered for availing such a huge cash loantransaction for number of years. Therefore, We hold that the abovecited judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the presentcase. 14. For all the aforementioned reasons, we find the penaltyorder at the hands of the assessing authority is in consonance withlaw. The said order having been confirmed by both the appellateauthority and the Tribunal, does not call for any interference bythis Court. In fine, we finding no merits in the appeals noquestions of law arises, much less no substantial questions of law.These Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2014are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ss/tsTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'A' Bench Chennai 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Pondicherry Range Pondicherry. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal-VI)Chennai-34 2 cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy,Advocate, SR.No.17714/2015 & 17484/159 cc to Mr. S.Sridhar,Advocate, SR.No.17151/15