JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-The above tax case (appeals) are filed by Revenue as against orders of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal raising following substantial questions of law: "T. C. (A.) No. 759 of 2014: Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 269SS read with section 271D is not applicable even though Tribunal having found that assessee had borrowed loans aggregating to Rs. 20,000 or more otherwise than through account payee cheque or draft in contravention of section 269SS? "T. C. (A) No. 760 of 2014: Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 269T read with section 271E is not applicable even though Tribunal having found that assessee had repaid loans in cash, otherwise than by account payee cheque or draft in contravention of section 269T?" In above tax case (appeals), Revenue has challenged orders of Tribunal relating to levy of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of Income-tax Act. However, Revenue has not challenged order of Tribunal with regard to quantum appeal decided in favour of respondent- assessee. assessment in these cases relates to assessment year 2006-07. respondent-assessee is engaged in business of civil construction. assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 200607, in which assessee had debited various expenses like payment of accounting charges, etc. According to Assessing Officer, assessee had to deduct tax at source under section 194J of Income-tax Act before making payment to payee. It is claim of respondent-assessee that he was labour supervisor and consequent to sincere and dedicated work, he was awarded labour contract by his clients. He had no resources to finance construction and, hence, he resorted to take loans from friends at time of emergency, particularly on Saturdays when labour payments have to be made. He also made certain payments in cash with regard to purchase of civil construction material and for accounting purposes without deducting tax at source. Assessing Officer disallowed accounting charges paid under section 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, thereby added entire amount under section 68 of Income-tax Act and imposed penalty under sections 271D and 271E of Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeals before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who confirmed order of Assessing Officer, thereby dismissed appeals. Aggrieved by same, assessee preferred appeals before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal allowed appeals filed by assessee-both in respect of quantum as well as penalty. Aggrieved by same, Revenue is before this court challenging order of Tribunal with regard to levy of penalty only. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and perused materials placed before this court. Tribunal decided quantum appeal in I. T. A. No. 1284/Mds/2010 holding that payment made towards accounting charges to site accountants was wrongly disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of Incometax Act and it was not covered under section 194J of Income-tax Act. Tribunal held that explanation of assessee that section 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act was introduced during assessment year in question and assessee's plea of bona fide mistake and impression that it will apply only for next assessment year was accepted primarily on ground that assessee has admitted this amount as income and paid tax thereon and there is no loss to Revenue and furthermore, confusion in mind of assessee was justified on account of fact that provision was introduced from April 1, 2006. Hence, Tribunal ordered deletion of this addition in income. In so far as payment made to hardware company in cash, Tribunal noticed that out of total payment of Rs. 41,53,008, sum of Rs. 74,647 alone stands paid in cash and, consequently, Tribunal ordered deletion of addition of Rs. 74,647 made under section 40A(3) of Income- tax Act. In so far as taking loans from friends are concerned, Tribunal reversed findings of Assessing Officer and that of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that it should be added as undisclosed income under section 68 of Income-tax Act and came to conclusion that evidence given by assessee in support of such short-term loan within assessment year is supported by individual affidavits of persons from whom amount was borrowed. Tribunal observed that Assessing Officer declined to look into those affidavits for paucity of time and summarily rejected evidence, as not acceptable. Tribunal found that Assessing Officer did not deal with explanation given by assessee, which is based on individual affidavit of persons from whom money was borrowed, duly not raised. Tribunal, however, gave credence to those statements made on oath and held that it was duty of officer to examine same before any decision is taken on correctness or otherwise of deposition made in affidavit. Placing reliance on decision reported in case of Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC), Tribunal decided quantum appeal in favour of assessee. Against which, Revenue has not chosen to file any appeal. Tribunal also allowed appeals filed by assessee with regard to penalty levied under section 271D and section 271E of Incometax Act. I. T. A. No. 1285/Mds/2010 relates to repayment of loan taken from friends in cash in contravention of section 269T of Income-tax Act; hence, suffering consequent penalty under section 271E of Income-tax Act. I. T. A. No. 1286/Mds/2010 relates to receiving of loan in cash in contravention of section 269SS; hence, suffering consequent penalty under section 271D of Income- tax Act. In both cases, Tribunal held in favour of assessee. We have perused order of Tribunal. Tribunal, in both cases, has taken note of explanation given by assessee before authorities below that he has engaged in construction business and he has started from scratch; that he did not have financial capacity to undertake huge projects and, therefore, he had to go for short-term cash borrowings from friends and known persons, which were repaid within same assessment year and, therefore, there was no need to reflect same in books of account; nevertheless cause for taking this loan was on account of need to pay nevertheless cause for taking this loan was on account of need to pay workers on weekends, namely, on Saturdays and Sundays on which date, there was no possibility of immediately accessing bank. exigency which forces assessee to make such payment has been accepted and extracted in order of Tribunal. relevant portion of order of Tribunal reads as follows for better clarity: "18. After considering rival submissions, we are of considered opinion that this penalty is not exigible. In view of extenuatory circumstances as explained by assessee in above part of order. We have deleted entire amount of quantum added from assessee's hands as above while deciding quantum appeal. hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases of CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Delhi) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi), has held that'where assessee had claimed to have received loans in cash exceeding prescribed limit of Rs. 20,000 but Revenue has treated receipt as undisclosed income of assessee, initiation of proceedings under section 269SS read with section 271D was not valid'. ratio laid down by hon'ble Delhi High Court in above case, mutatis mutandis, squarely applies to facts of this case. Moreover, any penalty provision in Act admits reasonable excuse which are sufficient to explain failures so committed. When business of assessee is such that he has to make payment in cash and has to make cash purchases, it is reasonable cause in given facts and circumstances of assessee's case. assessee has not found to hide this fact from Department, hence, we order to delete entire penalty imposed by Assessing Officer and allow appeal." We find much force in such explanation, considering nature of business and also taking note of fact that assessee is not big time civil construction contractor. Tribunal primarily was of view that loans taken in these cases were genuine and exigency that arose out of business was cause for taking such loan. Since in quantum appeal, Tribunal found that assessee was bona fide in such transaction, Tribunal in exercise of power under section 273B, considering reasonable cause submitted by assessee, thought it fit to set aside entire penalty by accepting explanation given by assessee. No doubt, decisions relied upon by Tribunal reported in CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Delhi) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) may not be applicable to facts of present case, as we are not concerned with case falling under section 68 of Income-tax Act where initiation of proceedings under section 269SS would become meaningless. Here is case where loan taken from friends and repayment of same in cash. reason that taking of loan is found to be genuine and same is for business exigency, it is not case of undisclosed income. If assessee had not given reasonable cause, then certainly initiation of proceedings for violation of section 269SS and section 269T would be justified. We find, in present case, reasonable cause for not levying penalty exists and Tribunal was justified in allowing assessee's appeal. On facts, Tribunal has clearly held in quantum appeal there was bona fide on part of assessee and as consequence finding reasonable cause, thought it fit to delete entire penalty. We find no ground to interfere with order of Tribunal. assessee has shown receipt of cash and repayment of same due to business exigency and that would amount to reasonable cause. genuineness of transaction to meet immediate necessity was accepted by Tribunal in quantum appeal and that would amount to reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of Income-tax Act. Hence, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in above appeals. In result, both tax case (appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M. P. No. 1 of 2014 is also dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. T. Perumal (Indl.)