IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO.74 OF 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax-II. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Shobhraj T. Chandwani Deceased, through L.R. Dinesh Motumal Chandwani. RESPONDENT.Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant.WITH TAX APPEAL NO.76 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10504 OF 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax-II. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Shobhraj T. Chandwani Deceased, through L.R. Dinesh Motumal Chandwani. RESPONDENT.Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant.WITH TAX APPEAL NO.77 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10503 OF 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax-II. APPELLANT Uploaded on - 15/04/2015 Downloaded on - 06/07/2020 17:21:27 Tax Appeal No.74/2005 & other connected appeals 2 VERSUS Shri Shobhraj T. Chandwani Deceased, through L.R. Dinesh Motumal Chandwani. RESPONDENT.Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant.WITH TAX APPEAL NO.78 OF 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax-II. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Shobhraj T. Chandwani Deceased, through L.R. Dinesh Motumal Chandwani. RESPONDENT.Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant.WITH TAX APPEAL NO.79 OF 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax-II. APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Shobhraj T. Chandwani Deceased, through L.R. Dinesh Motumal Chandwani. RESPONDENT.Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant. Uploaded on - 15/04/2015 Downloaded on - 06/07/2020 17:21:27 Tax Appeal No.74/2005 & other connected appeals 3 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED: 10th April, 2015. ORAL ORDER : 1. person against whom penalty is imposed, is dead. His son is brought as legal heir. 2. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for appellant submits that, reasoning given by Commissioner and Tribunal is ex-facie and per say erroneous. reasoning that assessee bonafidely believed that provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T are not applicable as such entitled to be exonerated from imposition of penalty is erroneous. Assessing Officer has rightly considered all relevant aspects of matter though transaction was between father and son. transaction above Rs.20,000/- attracted provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T of Income Tax Act. Non compliance of said provisions entail levy of penalty. This aspect was rightly considered by Assessing Officer. However, on wrong premise Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal have set aside order of penalty levied under Uploaded on - 15/04/2015 Downloaded on - 06/07/2020 17:21:27 Tax Appeal No.74/2005 & other connected appeals 4 Section 271D and 271E against assessee. 3. We have considered submissions canvassed by learned counsel for appellant. present Tax Appeals can be entertained only on substantial question of law. Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal have concurrently arrived at conclusion that transaction between father and son was genuine transaction. facts have been discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) in detail wherein Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal have accepted that son was contractor and he was required to go out every time and so amount was kept with father for making payments to Creditors. After considering said factual aspects, both authorities came to concurrent conclusion about transaction and have passed order setting aside penalty imposed by Assessing Officer. This Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eetachi (referred supra) has also considered similar aspect. 4. Considering aforesaid aspects of matter, appeals are dismissed. No costs. Uploaded on - 15/04/2015 Downloaded on - 06/07/2020 17:21:27 Tax Appeal No.74/2005 & other connected appeals 5 5. In view of dismissal of appeals, pending Civil Applications are disposed of. (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Commissioner of Income-tax-II v. Shobhraj T. Chandwani L/R Dinesh Motumal Chandwani