2000 (4) TMI 823 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS.
2. Definition and applicability of "loan" or "deposit" u/s 269SS.
3. Existence of reasonable cause u/s 273B.

Summary:

1. Penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS:
The assessee, a partnership firm, was penalized Rs. 38,10,000 u/s 271D for receiving cash amounts totaling Rs. 38,10,000 from M/s. Vikas Exim (VE), allegedly in contravention of section 269SS. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings, asserting that the cash transactions violated section 269SS, which mandates that loans or deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000 must be accepted through an account payee cheque or draft.

2. Definition and applicability of "loan" or "deposit" u/s 269SS:
The assessee contended that the amounts received were temporary advances for business exigencies, not loans or deposits within the meaning of section 269SS. The CIT(A) disagreed, enhancing the penalty to Rs. 38,10,000, arguing that the entire amount received in cash violated section 269SS. The Tribunal noted that the terms "loan" and "deposit" are not mutually exclusive and that the amounts received from VE were temporary advances without any stipulation for interest or fixed tenure, thus falling outside the purview of section 269SS.

3. Existence of reasonable cause u/s 273B:
The assessee argued that the cash was received due to business exigencies, specifically for advance excise duty payments, and thus constituted a reasonable cause u/s 273B. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the transactions were genuine, the amounts were used for statutory business obligations, and there was no evidence of unaccounted money. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of reasonable cause should be considered pragmatically, taking into account business exigencies and unpredictability.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for receiving the amounts in cash and that the transactions did not represent unaccounted money. It also concluded that the amounts received were temporary advances, not loans or deposits, and thus outside the scope of section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and any collected penalty was directed to be refunded.