JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. - These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short). Income Tax Appeal No.579 of 2017 being the lead matter, for convenience we may record facts from the said appeal. 2. Appellant is an individual and is a proprietor of an industrial manufacturing unit. The appeal relates to the penalty imposed by the Competent Authority and reinstated by the Tribunal under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee had presented following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 28,00,000/-, under Section 271D of the Act by holding that there was no reasonable cause as contemplated by Section 273B of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal misdirected itself in going beyond the scope and ambit of Section 271D r/w Section 273B of the Act and confirming the penalty, on grounds extraneous and alien to the proceedings under Section 271D r/w Section 273B of the Act?" 3. For the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had filed the return of income which was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. The assessee''s account showed several sundry creditors. For want of necessary supporting evidence the Assessing Officer did not accept such creditors and added the entire amount in the hands of the assessee as his income. The assessee carried the matter in the appeal. Before CIT (Appeals) the assessee contended that the amounts were received by the assessee by way of cash loans from friends who were farmers. The CIT (Appeals) called from a remand report during which the assessee produced the confirmations from the so-called friends of having made such cash loans. The assessee had also argued that such amounts were utilized by him for making purchases of machinery/raw materials in gray market. The CIT (Appeals) in the Appellate order held that the loans were confirmed through confirmation letters and the addition therefore could not be sustained. If at all, this would be a case of breach of Section 269SS of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) in the Appellate order held that the loans were confirmed through confirmation letters and the addition therefore could not be sustained. If at all, this would be a case of breach of Section 269SS of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings for breach of the said provisions to be imposed under Section 271D of the Act were instituted. The assessee was confronted with the breach of the requirement of Section 269SS of not accepting loans in access of specified amounts otherwise than through banking channels. In the order of penalty that the Competent Authority has eventually passed, he recorded that several opportunities were given to the assessee to give such explanation which the assessee had not availed of. Relevant portion of this order reads as under :- "3.2 In response to the said letter, Shri Vijay Thakkar CA and AR appeared on 21.5.2013 and filed a written submission in the Tapal. He also filed a letter of authority before the undersigned. The submission made in the Tapal was brought during the course of hearing and the contentions therein were discussed with the A.R. with reference to the facts of taking cash deposits/loans by the assessee from the farmer friends vis-a-vis the genuineness of transactions and also the business necessity/ exigency for taking such loans/deposits and also the facts and legal issues raised by the assessee in the submission so made. He sought time till 29.5.2013 to prove the exigency/necessity of taking cash loans for the purpose of assessee''s business, which was also allowed. On 29.5.2013, the assessee Shri Wadikar appeared with Shri Thakkar, CA and AR and sought further time for 15 days to prove the exigency/necessity of taking cash loans from farmer friends for the purpose of assessee''s business. As sufficient time was already allowed, further time as sought for was not allowed to the assessee. Now, the penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, are disposed off on the basis of the submission made by the assessee on 21.5.2013. For the sake of convenience, the submission made by the assessee on 21.5.2013 explaining the reasons for taking cash loans from the farmer friends and also requesting for non levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is quoted below:-" 4. For the sake of convenience, the submission made by the assessee on 21.5.2013 explaining the reasons for taking cash loans from the farmer friends and also requesting for non levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is quoted below:-" 4. The assessee however, did file submissions on 21st May, 2013 before the said Authority which has been reproduced in its entirety in the order of penalty. We have perused these submissions. The assessee has raised several legal contentions and taken support of several authorities. However, with respect of the factual aspect, all that the assessee had said was that the amount was utilized for purchase of materials from open/ gray market and the amount was received from farmer friends. The asessee further stated that the assessee had fully utilized the cash credit limit sanctioned by the bank. He had to make purchases from the open/gray market for which he needed money for fulfilling orders. It was therefore, essential for the assessee to buy material in time to execute the purchase orders. Loans raised from bank were not sufficient to meet this purpose. He therefore, had to make borrowing in cash from friends. 5. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax did not accept this explanation. He imposed penalty under Section 271D of the Act by observing that no such explanation was adduced earlier. It was only during the remand report the assessee claimed that cash loans were utilized for making purchases from gray market. The authority was not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee. He noticed that such loans and deposits which were taken by the assessee had not entered in the regular books of account and the assessee had started re-paying such loans much later. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the Appellate Authority. Appellate authority deleted the penalty upon which the Department had carried the matter before the Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and reinstated the penalty. The Tribunal was not convinced by the assessee''s explanation. By detailed judgment the Tribunal allowed the revenue''s appeal upon which the present appeal has been filed. 7. Facts in other appeals are substantially similar and therefore, are not separately recorded. 8. In view of such facts, counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that Tribunal committed a serious error in reinstating the penalty under section 271D of the Act. By detailed judgment the Tribunal allowed the revenue''s appeal upon which the present appeal has been filed. 7. Facts in other appeals are substantially similar and therefore, are not separately recorded. 8. In view of such facts, counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that Tribunal committed a serious error in reinstating the penalty under section 271D of the Act. He submitted that the assessee had rendered an explanation which was reasonable and that therefore, the penalty should have been deleted. He contended that the transactions were genuine and that therefore no penalty can be imposed. Counsel further submitted that the assessee was in a need of urgent funds, he having exhausted the bank credit limit and required urgent purchase of raw material to be made in order to execute his orders. For such purpose, the assessee was forced to accept cash loans from friends. The Tribunal ought to have accepted the explanation. 9. Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi Vol. 255 ITR 258 in which in the context of the virus of Section 271D of the Act, the Supreme Court made certain observations. 10. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) to contend that being a penalty provision, Section 271D of the Act should be viewed strictly. Reliance was placed on following decisions in the support of the contention that in the present case the transaction being genuine and bonafide, harsh consequence of imposition of the penalty under Section 271D of the Act should not follow:- (i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Saini Medical Store 2005 Vol.276 ITR 79 (ii) Omec Engineers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2007) 294 ITR 599 (Jharkhand) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Panchsheel Owners Associations (2017) 88 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat) (iv) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Manoj Lalwani (2003) Vol 260 ITR 590 (v) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bhagwatiprasad Bajoria (2003) Vol 263 ITR 487 (vi) Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Agra vs. Smt. Dimpal Yadav (2015) 61 taxmann.com 219 (Allahabad) 11. Section 269SS of the Act essentially provides that no person shall take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit or any specified sum otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft and/ or electronic clearing system through bank. Section 269SS of the Act essentially provides that no person shall take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit or any specified sum otherwise by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft and/ or electronic clearing system through bank. Sub-section (1) of Section 271D of the Act provides that if a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit of specified sum in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS, he would be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to amount of loan or deposit or the amount taken or accepted. Section 273B of the Act in turn provides that notwithstanding anything contained in various penalty provisions contained in the Act, including Section 271D, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 12. Facts in the present case are substantially established. As noted, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment doubted various sundry creditors claimed by the assessee. In appeal the assessee contended that the amounts were received through cash loans. The breach of Section 269SS of the Act even going by the assessee''s contention was thus established. The consequences of the penalty under Section 271D of the Act would therefore ordinarily follow unless the assessee established as required under section 273B the reasonable cause for such failure. Thus, the onus was on the assessee to establish any such reasonable cause. 13. We have already noted that the Additional Commissioner had given sufficient opportunities to establish such reasonable cause. Assessee do not avail of such opportunity. The assessee finally made written submissions. In such written submissions also on facts the assessee stated that having exhausted the bank cash credit limits, the assessee was forced to accept cash loans from farmer friends to purchase raw material to execute time bound orders. This was the mere assertion made on the part of the assessee without any backing through material. The assesssee did not bring on record the financial position, the details of purchase orders required to be executed within time and most significantly did not co-relate the purchases made from such cash loans. This was the mere assertion made on the part of the assessee without any backing through material. The assesssee did not bring on record the financial position, the details of purchase orders required to be executed within time and most significantly did not co-relate the purchases made from such cash loans. This aspect has been highlighted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment when the Tribunal recorded that the assessee has not given the dates on which he accepted the loans and the dates of purchase of raw material in the gray market and whether on such dates the funds were available with the assessee as per his account. Thus assessee relied all along on mere oral assertions of urgent requirement of funds without producing any material to establish such assertion. The Tribunal did not accept such bald assertion and has essentially came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable. We do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal. It may be that the Tribunal might have cast certain aspersions on the transaction itself. However, some passing remarks in the order would not vitiate the very foundation of the order. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not giving reasonable explanation for failure to fulfill the requirement of Section 269SS of the Act due to which the penalty under section 271D of the Act had to follow. No question of law arises. Income Tax Appeals are dismissed.