The assessee, an individual, was engaged in the business of share trading. In AY 2008-09 he received a sum of Rs. 2.54 lakhs in cash on different dates from his father. Assessee contended that the amount so received in cash is gift. In support of same, assessee submitted gift deed prepared on 17.05.2011. The Assessing Officer observed that the gift was received in financial year 2007-08 whereas the gift deed was made on May 17, 2011, prepared on stamp paper purchased on May 16, 2011. AO held that the cash accepted was contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and he levied penalty u/s 271D. The CIT (A) affirmed the penalty. Aggrieved, Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not doubted the genuineness of the transaction as no addition was made u/s 68. The provision of section 269SS was brought under the statue to discourage the assessee to justify their unaccounted money. However, in the case on hand, there is no allegation that the assessee has introduced unaccounted money in his business. Relying on the decision of G.D. Subraya Sheregar vs. ITO (10 SOT 378), observed that the expression “any other person” appearing in section 269SS has been interpreted by the two Benches of the Tribunal in two different ways. One view is that the said expression excludes all those persons who are closely connected with the assessee and the other view is to the opposite effect. Both views are possible views. It is well-settled that there are two possible views, the view favourable to the assessee needs to be accepted. The Tribunal held that such cash transaction, between father and son, which are genuine cannot be brought under the net of tax under the provision of section 269SS of the Act. The Tribunal went further to hold that, even if it was given as loan at that relevant time and later on the parties agreed to treat as gift, then the matter ends here as the transaction was between son and father which was substantiated with gift deed and confirmation. Section 271D applies on accepting loans & deposits. There is the basic difference between the gift and loan/Deposit. A gift is never paid back/return to the donor while it is not so in the case of the loan. The Tribunal observed that there was nothing on record to shows that money was paid back to the father by the assessee directly or indirectly. Penalty levied u/s 271D was thus deleted. (ITA no. 2996/Ahd/2016 dt. 01.01.2019 )  (AY. 2008-09)