Penalty: S/s. 269SS and 271D: Amount received by assessee from her father-in-law for purchasing property: Transaction genuine and source disclosed: Penalty u/s. 271D not to be imposed:

In the previous year relevant to A. Y. 2005-06, the assessee received a loan of Rs. 20,99,393/- in cash from her father-in-law for purchasing property. In the penalty proceedings u/s. 271D r/w. s. 269SS, the assessee claimed that the amount received in cash from father-in-law was a gift and not a loan. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had received the amount as a loan and not as a gift, because the amount was shown as a loan in the balance sheet of the assessee, which was filed with the return of income. He therefore imposed penalty of Rs. 20,99,393/- u/s. 271D of the Act. The Tribunal held that the transaction was between the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law and the genuineness of the transaction in which the amount had been paid by the father-in-law for the purchase of property was not disputed, and the cash taken by the assessee from her father-in-law was not a loan transaction. The Tribunal, accordingly, deleted the penalty.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Madras High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) The contention of the Revenue is that the amount received by the assessee from her fatherin- law has to be treated only as a loan and if it is a loan, then the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s. 271D of the Act.

ii) Whether it is a loan or other transaction, still the other provision, namely, section 273B, comes to the rescue of the assessee, if she is able to show reasonable cause for avoiding penalty u/s. 271D. The Tribunal has rightly found that the transaction between the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law is a reasonable transaction and a genuine one owing to the urgent necessity of money to be paid to the seller. We find that this would amount to reasonable cause shown by the assessee to avoid penalty u/s. 271D of the Act.

iii) The Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to warrant interference. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.”