COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. T.R. RENGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee has taken loans of a total sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from one Selvasundri and Chitra. The Jt. CIT, finding that the loans were availed of by the assessee in contravention of the provisions of s. 269SS of the IT Act, 1961, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under s. 271D of the Act should not be levied and after finding that the assessee had no reasonable cause for borrowing the amount in cash, levied penalty under s. 271D of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee took the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal holding that the assessee had reasonable cause to borrow loans, quashed the penalty. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed these appeals.

(2.) WE find that the Tribunal has considered the case of the assessee that the family members of the assessee wanted their money to be kept in safe custody and to use it as and when required for the business of the assessee and the assessee received the money on a Sunday. The Tribunal has held that merely for the reason that after the amounts were received, the assessee did not utilise the same, it would not go to show that there was no business requirement for the assessee. We, therefore, hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the penalty imposed was not warranted and accordingly, allowed the appeals. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal.

(3.) MR . K. Subramaniam, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, in his fairness, has brought to our attention the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Janardhana Rao vs. Jt. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (SC) 585 : (2005) 273 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that in the exercise of the powers under s. 260A of the Act, the findings of the fact of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed and there is no scope for interference by the High Court with a finding recorded, when such finding can be treated to be a finding of fact. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no substantial question of law that arises out of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact. We do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, that arises for consideration in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine, at the admission stage itself. Connected TCMP is closed.