9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Validity of provisions of u/s 269SS and u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Validity of u/s 269SS: The petitioner was assessed for the year 1991-92 and penalty was imposed u/s 271D for receiving cash advances exceeding Rs. 20,000. The petitioner argued that the borrowings were genuine and not treated as income. The provisions of u/s 269SS were challenged, stating that there is no competence in Parliament to treat loans as income for penalty purposes if not treated as income. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the argument that loans should not be considered income unless they are actually received as profit or gain. Legislative Competence and Rationality: The petitioner argued that u/s 269SS does not exclude genuine transactions and lacks stipulations regarding the assessability of the person involved. It was contended that genuine borrowings explained satisfactorily should not be considered income, thus penalty provisions should not apply. The petitioner also raised concerns about the arbitrary nature of penalizing borrowers only, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Judicial Precedents and Classification: Legal precedents were cited to challenge the validity of u/s 269SS, emphasizing the need for a rational connection between the taxed item and the concept of income. The Gujarat High Court upheld the validity of u/s 269SS, stating that borrowers and lenders are not equally situated when it comes to tax evasion. The classification made by the Legislature was deemed rational and not discriminatory. Constitutional Validity and Preventing Tax Evasion: The court upheld the validity of u/s 269SS, stating that it is a reasonable restriction to prevent tax evasion and plug loopholes. The section aims to ensure genuine transactions and prevent fictitious entries in account books. The distinction between lenders and borrowers was justified, as borrowers may need adjustments to avoid tax. The provisions of u/s 269SS and u/s 271D were considered reasonable restrictions in line with Parliament's power and not violative of constitutional articles. Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the validity of u/s 269SS and u/s 271D were dismissed. The petitioner was given the option to file an appeal within a specified period without limitation objections being raised.
|
