COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE heard Ms. Parinitoo Jain for the Revenue and Mr. P.K. Kasliwal counsel for the assessee. That the assessee acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income -tax Act, 1961, by accepting a loan of Rs. 90,000 in cash in the year from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, on different dates from his brother Pankaj Sharma is not in dispute.

(2.) THE details of the loan accepted by the assessee from his brother Pankaj Sharma are thus: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_762_TLRAJ0_2007.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE explanation of the assessee in response to the show -cause notice was that the loan was taken from his brother for immediate business need and that he was under bona fide belief that the acceptance of cash deposit below Rs. 20,000 does not contravene Section 269SS of the Income -tax Act.