2003 (2) TMI 417 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the cancellation of a penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to loans received through transfer entries instead of account payee cheques or bank drafts.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Penalty under section 271D
The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271D due to loans received not through account payee cheques or bank drafts. The CIT(A) canceled the penalty, stating that no cash transactions were involved, and the loans were a bifurcation of existing amounts among family members, hence not applicable. The Revenue argued that the loans were received through journal entries, citing precedents, but the Tribunal found the cases distinguishable, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 269SS
The assessee, an HUF, split a credit balance among family members through journal entries, contending it wasn't a loan or deposit under section 269SS as money didn't pass from one person to another. The Counsel relied on legal definitions and precedents to support that the transactions were genuine and not for tax evasion. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that section 269SS applies only to actual money transfers as loans or deposits, not journal entries acknowledging debts.

Conclusion:
After reviewing the facts and legal arguments, the Tribunal found no violation of section 269SS by the assessee and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty under section 271D. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.