2002 (3) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the penalty under section 271D for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act? - 2. Whether, for levying the penalty under section 271D for violation of section 269SS of the Act is it required by the Assessing Officer to look into genuineness of loan or deposit? - The questions referred are interconnected. We are required to adjudicate upon whether non-compliance of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act of 1961 necessarily imposes liability on the assessee for payment of penalty by virtue of section 271D of the Act of 1961 or the assessing authority has the jurisdiction and authority to consider the facts and circumstances in which the assessee made default of non-complying the provisions of section 269SS of the Act of 1961 and can waive the penalty. - the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjudication of penalty under section 271D for violation of section 269SS.
2. Requirement for assessing officer to consider genuineness of loan or deposit for penalty under section 271D.

Issue 1: Adjudication of penalty under section 271D for violation of section 269SS:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for contravening section 269SS. The assessee, engaged in the export business, had taken a cash loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, leading to penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, observed that the genuineness of the loan was not in doubt, and the cash was deposited in the bank promptly for business payments. It was noted that the loan was taken due to urgent need and lack of time and funds, without any intent to violate the law. The Tribunal concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the cash loan, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed by the revenue authorities.

Issue 2: Requirement for assessing officer to consider genuineness of loan or deposit for penalty under section 271D:
The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the genuineness and circumstances surrounding the loan or deposit when adjudicating penalties under section 271D. In this case, the assessing authority did not doubt the genuineness of the loan, and the immediate deposit of the cash in the bank indicated a valid transaction for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the cash loan was taken under exceptional circumstances to meet urgent business requirements, demonstrating a lack of intention to violate the law. The Tribunal's decision to waive the penalty was based on the reasonable cause shown by the assessee and the authority's discretion under section 273B to not impose penalties if valid reasons are provided.

In conclusion, the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the Tribunal's decision to waive the penalty imposed on the assessee, emphasizing the importance of considering reasonable cause and genuineness of transactions when adjudicating penalties under section 271D for violations of section 269SS. The judgment clarified that assessing authorities have the discretion to not levy penalties if valid justifications are presented, ensuring a fair and balanced approach to penalty imposition in tax matters.