138 ni act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 27 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
I have lent Rs.100000/-(One Lakh) Cash to a customer & taken Signature on Promissory Note & Advance Chq of Rs.(One Lakh).Now he has Defaulted.
I have filed Criminal Complaint U/s 138
I have shown cash entry on the above given date & Reflects in my IT returns.
My Question is
Whether Cash Payment of Rs.1 L would damage my case. I know that in excess of Rs.20000 cannot be paid in cash but Mistake it has happen. I have Evidence of Promissory note.
Please Provide Solution
Amit Minocha
(Expert) 27 December 2011
cash lending is barred u/s 269SS of It Act and hence the transaction being barred under law is not maintainable u/s 138 NIA as well. However, u may rmain silent on this point in Court and incase the opposite counsel is smart enough to point out in your cross examination, simply show your ignorance.
In the mean while file a summary suit u.o. 37 cpc as well so as to recover your money from there plus addting to the pressure on other other side.amitminocha@yahoo.com
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 27 December 2011
Amit,
Cash lending is barred for certain purposes. However promissory note is there.
Hence the complaint is maintainable.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Guest
(Expert) 28 December 2011
Agree with Shri Shonee Kapoor.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 28 December 2011
The court is concerned only with the issue whether you have lent money or not, hence in light of the documentary evidence held by you your case is maintainable.
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 28 December 2011
Here is violation of Section 269T of IT Act, which have no effect on NI Case.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 28 December 2011
Mr. Sonee is rightly explained about your query.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 28 December 2011
Power of defense is power of negative, if the defense advocate does proper home work he can prove your accounts are manipulated.
Since the IT 269T will impose 100% penalty on accused if amount shown as cash in his books so why he will dig his grave. So for taking one lack cash loan if the borrower has to pay one lack penalty why he will accept such loan.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 28 December 2011
experts from a SC citation- the sectiion of IT referred was it was than-
19. The courts below failed to notice that ordinarily in terms of Section
269SS of the Income Tax Act, any advance taken by way of any loan of
more than Rs. 20,000/- was to be made by way of an account payee cheque
only.
Section 271D of the Income Tax Act reads as under:
\023271D. Penalty for failure to comply with the
provisions of section 269SS. (1) If a person takes
or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of
the provisions of section 269SS, he shall be liable
to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the
amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted.
(2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1)
shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.\024
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 29 December 2011
I agreed with all experts view more over if u need to escape the opp counsil then u have to make entry in your book in different days and the amount should be bellow 20 thousand .
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 30 December 2011
In case, your friend need urgent help of 2L, as you have to deposit in Hospital to admit your near and dear at odd hrs of day, very urgently, or fr any such reasons, there is no bar, and N I Act only consider liability in to a/c.
Thousands of Friendly Loans above 1L were punished.
IT alone is not at all a good defense.
The case is maintainable.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 30 December 2011
As for as the NI Act is concerned, whether the amount is legally enforceable debt or not.
In your case it is clearly legally enforceable. Not following the IT rules, will not affect the cheque bounce case.
