Itxa/800/2002 Of Chandrakant Shankar Nair v. Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

1 O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.800 OF 2002 M/s. Chandrakant Shankar Naik .. Appellant v/s. 1. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Range-3,Aurangabad... Respondent Ms.A.Khan i/by Ms.Jyoti Dailani for appellant. Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with Mr.VijayKantharia i/by Mr.P.Kapur for respondent. CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:22ndSeptember, 2004 P.C. Heard Ms.A.Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The Tribunal in the impugned order observed thus- "In this case the assessee is found tohave received aggregated amount of loan ofRs.1,50,000/- from HUF in cash during theprevious year relevant to the assessmentyear under consideration on ten differentoccasions. So the assessee has violatedthe provisions of section 269SS and theA.O. has imposed the penalty ofRs.1,50,000/- u/s.271D. Moreover, assesseehas not been able to show or establish anysufficient cause. These transactions areadmittedly not between the twoagriculturists and are rather between theHUF and the assessee firm. Co-parcenersthough constitutent of HUF cannot be termedas HUF. Since the amount has been receivedby the assessee firm from HUF otherwisethan the mode prescribed under sec. 269SS,thus there is clear violation whichattracts penalty u/s.271D, therefore, theassessee can be visited with the same.Therefore, in my considered view, and theA.O. has rightly imposed the impugnedpenalty and the learned CIT(A) isunjustified in deleting the penalty. Hisaction being unwarranted and uncalled foris reversed." 3. The consideration of the matter by the Tribunalcannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. 4. No substantial question of law arises.Dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)