The Commissioner Of Incometax, Aaykar Bhavan,Aurangabad v. Wens Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd.vardhaman Chambers, Mondha Road,Surana Compunnd, Aurangabad

{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2012 The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Aaykar Bhavan,Aurangabad Petitioner/s Versus Wens Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd.Vardhaman Chambers, Mondha Road,Surana Compunnd, Aurangabad. Respondent/s Mr. Alok M. Sharma, ASGI for the petitioner.Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2014. PER COURT: 1] Heard Mr. Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Sharma would vehemently urge that the controversy in this appeal is identical to another Tax Appeal, namely, Tax Appeal No.29 of 2011, "The Commissioner of India Vs. Chintaman Nagari Pat Pethi Maryadit”, and that appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law, enumerated in the order of this Court dated 6th February, 2014. {2} 2]We are unable to agree. In this case, the Tribunal, as also, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), concurrently found that the penalty under Section 272D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not have been levied for violation of the mandate of Section 269SS thereof.For, Section 273B provides that penalty would not be leviable and cannot be levied if there was a reasonable cause and which the assessee has made out. 3]If that is the course adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal and they have concurrently held that the cause shown by the assessee was reasonable, then, we have no jurisdiction and particularly, under Section 260A, of the Income Tax Act, to substitute their views with our view. The view taken cannot be said to be improbable or impossible. The view is that the cause shown is reasonable and based on the explanation given. 4]The assessee in this case did not have a Core-Banking facility in order to meet the cash requirements at its branches. It borrowed from the two sister concerns the cash amount. The sister concerns withdrew cash from their as a bank accounts and advanced it to the assessee for the purpose of business operations. 5]Merely because the assessee had sufficient cash balance in its head office books at the relevant time, would not mean that as a facility for its branches it could not have borrowed the money in the {3} TA 16.12.odt manner it had. Ultimately, this was a case of transaction with sister concerns. The explanation was, therefore, found to be reasonable and we see no reason to interfere with such course adopted and by applying the correct legal principles. 6]The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The same, therefore, is dismissed. [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] JUDGE [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE. grt/-