Cit v. Pramot Malpani Db Income Tax Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR J U D G M E N T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II, JAIPUR VS SHRI PRAMOD MALPANI (DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 193/11.) PRESENT DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10TH AUGUST, 2011. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE BELA M. TRIVEDI,J.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) challenging the order dated 31[st] March, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT for short), Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 856/JP/09 for the assessment year 2005-06 of the respondent-assessee. The short question involved in the instant case is as to whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271E on the assessee for the violation of the provisions of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. It was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mathur for the appellant that the assessee had repaid the loan taken earlier by way of cash of Rs. 2.85 lacs to Smt. Manju Devi and Rs. 2.85 lacs to Smt. Shanti Devi which was in violation of the provisions of Section 269T of the Act and, therefore, the assessing officer had rightly imposed penalty of Rs. 5,70,000/- under Section 271E of the said Act. He submitted that the assessee had created a false story to justify the requirements of urgency in the repayment of loan, which was not consistent with the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 10[th] May, 2004 and that claim of the assessee was also contradicting the entries made in the books of accounts of Smt. Manju Devi and Smt. Shanti Devi. Having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Mathur and the orders passed by the ITAT, it transpires that the ITAT after having considered the factual aspect that the family transactions had taken place between the assessee and Smt. Manju Devi, who happened to be the “Bhabhi” of the assessee and Smt. Shanti Devi, who happened to be the mother of the assessee and also considering contents of the sale-deed, has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ITAT has also relied upon the judgment of Haryana High Court for coming to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of CIT (A), who had cancelled the penalty levelled by the assessing officer. Mr. Mathur has also failed to point out any error of law in the said impugned order passed by the ITAT. There being no question of law, much less substantial question of law, involved in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (BELA M. TRIVEDI ) J. ( ARUN MISHRA ) CJ. MRG.