Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – 1, Mumbai v. Shri Roshanlal Jeetmal Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1509 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1510 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1511 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1512 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1513 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 1, MumbaiVersus ..Appellant. Shri Roshanlal Jeetmal Jain..Respondent. Mr.P.C. Chhotaray i/by Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.P.C. Tripathi i/by Mr.S.G. Dalal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 30[th] January 2013 P.C. : 1. In all these appeals by the Revenue for assessment years 2004- 2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, following common question of law has been raised for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law was right in deleting the penalty by relying on the case laws the facts of which and the parameters laid down therein are not applicable to the case of the respondent ?” 2.The respondent – assessee had received money in cash from his brother and returned it during the same assessment year. According to the Revenue, these amounts were in the nature of accepting loans and repaying the loans in cash. Thus, in violation of Section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), attracting penalty under Section 271E and 271D of the Act. 3.The Tribunal has held that these transactions were between two brothers duly reflected by the entries in the books of account. Thus, the Tribunal held that such transfer of money within the family cannot be considered to be a loan, deposit or advance in terms of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Act. In any event, the Tribunal held that reasonable cause has been provided by the respondent – assessee of the transaction being between brothers and thus no penalty is warranted either under Section 271E or Section 271D of the Act. 4.Since the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.)(J.P. Devadhar, J.)