Tribunal held that since the Learned representative for the assessee consented to the proposition that apart from the bona fides of the transaction, assessee is also required to prove the existence of reasonable cause to come within the immunity provided in S. 273B of the Act, we do not dwell upon any further with the reservations expressed by the Division Bench in the reference note. Tribunal referred the Judgement of Apex Court in ADIT (Inv) v. Kum .A.B. Shanthi (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) . This was expressed before the parties, who thereafter have made submissions on merits. Accordingly the Tribunal held that, the assessee has failed show that there was any urgent business necessity and hence the assessee was constrained to take loans by way of cash. In view that the assessee has failed to show that there was a reasonable cause for getting loans in violation of the provisions of S. 269SS of the Act. Accordingly we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.2.00 lakhs imposed by the assessee. ( ITA No. 6304/Mum/2012, dt. 13.06.2018)(AY. 2008-09
Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT( 2018) 172 ITD 33/168 DTR 65/ 194 TTJ 690 / 65 ITR 726 (Mum)(Trib)(SB), www.itatonline.org
S. 271D: Penalty – takes or accepts any loan or deposit- Representative of the assessee consented to the proposition that apart from the bona fides of the transaction, assessee is also required to prove the existence of reasonable cause to come within the immunity provided in S. 273B of the Act, Accordingly the Tribunal has not dealt with any further with the reservations expressed by the Division Bench in the reference note. Accordingly on facts the assessee has failed to show that there was a reasonable cause for getting loans in violation of the provisions of S. 269SS of the Act . Levy of penalty is held to be justified . [ S.269SS, 273B ]