Income Tax

Cash transactions between husband-wife do not attract section 269SS – ITAT

Cash transactions between husband-wife do not attract section 269SS if transactions are not for commercial use. Tribunal deleted penalty under section 271D

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2092 (2017) (10) ITAT

The Challenge/Grievance:
The assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed the order of Assessing Officer (AO) imposing penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for acceptance of cash loan in contravention of section 269SS which provides that no loan or deposit in excess of Rs. 20,000/- can be taken in cash.

Brief Facts of the Case:
The spouse of the assessee on several occasions deposited cash in the savings bank of the assessee so that a property can be purchased in the name of the assessee. However, the negotiations did not materialise and the cash deposited was partly returned by the cheque and partly in cash by the wife to her husband.

The AO treated the cash repayment of loan as attracting the provision of section 269SS and imposed a penalty u/s 271D of the Act.

The CIT(A) upheld the penalty equal to the amount of cash transaction for the alleged violation of the provision of section 269SS.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee had preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
The ITAT opined that the transaction between wife and husband are protected are not covered u/s 269SS if they are not for commercial use. The provisions are not applicable as husband and wife do not bear a relationship of a depositor/creditor as no interest is involved.

The ITAT observed that otherwise it would disturb the peace of families, promote domestic broils, and weaken the mutual confidence which is the most enduring solace of married life.

Decision/Held:
The penalty levied u/s 271D was directed to be deleted.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in making addition by adopting extrapolation without any material evidence

AO was not justified in making addition by adopting method of extrapolation without bringing any material evidence in support -…

3 hours ago
  • bankruptcy

Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers decided by CoC

Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or to substitute its own view for the decision…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

When quantum appeal restored, penalty can’t be levied for non-payment of demand

When quantum appeal stands restored to the AO, penalty can not be levied u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Even in case of bogus purchases, entire purchases cannot be disallowed – ITAT

Even if, the assessee is engaged in the bogus purchases, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed - ITAT In a…

3 days ago
  • SEBI

Order to stock broker by WhatsApp are legally verifiable record – SEBI

Order to stock broker through WhatsApp may be considered as legally verifiable record - SEBI SEBI in an informal guidance…

3 days ago
  • ICAI

ICAI Guidance Note on Audit of Banks, 2025 Edition

ICAI Guidance Note on Audit of Banks 2026 Edition ICAI has issued 2025 edition of the Guidance Note on Audit…

3 days ago