2013 (11) TMI 1648 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - Held that - In the case of Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd (2008 (2) TMI 494 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ) it has been held that the genuineness of the loan does not take way the said loan from the sweep of the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act. Hence we are unable to agree with the submissions made by Ld A.R in this regard. We have already noticed that the assessee has failed to show that the impugned transaction will fall in the category of transactions prescribed under the proviso to sec. 269SS of the Act. The assessee has also failed to show that there existed a reasonable cause in accepting the impugned loan amount in cash. Hence we are unable to sustain the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly we set aside his order and restore the penalty levied by the AO.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to deletion of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act by Ld CIT(A).
- Interpretation of provisions of sec. 269SS regarding acceptance of loan or deposit.
- Examination of explanations provided by the assessee regarding the nature of the cash received.
- Consideration of exceptions and reasonable cause under sec. 273B for penalty u/s 271D.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the challenge to the deletion of a penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act by the Ld CIT(A). The revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by Ld CIT(A) related to the assessment year 2008-09 concerning a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000 levied under sec. 271D, which was deleted by Ld CIT(A), prompting the revenue to appeal further.

2. The case involved the interpretation of provisions of sec. 269SS regarding the acceptance of a loan or deposit. The assessee, a nonresident with businesses in Dubai, Abudhabi, and India, received a cash loan of Rs. 15.00 lakhs during the relevant financial year. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax initiated penalty proceedings under sec. 271D due to a potential violation of sec. 269SS.

3. The explanations provided by the assessee regarding the cash received were crucial. The assessee claimed the amount represented an advance for the sale of property by their children to Shri K.C. Usman. However, discrepancies arose regarding the nature of the transaction, including contradictions in confirmation letters and lack of supporting documentation.

4. The judgment analyzed exceptions and reasonable cause under sec. 273B for penalty u/s 271D. Despite contentions that the genuineness of the receipt was accepted, the AO found no reasonable cause for accepting the cash loan, leading to the penalty imposition. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating claims and complying with legal provisions.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Ld CIT(A)'s decision and restored the penalty levied by the AO, emphasizing the failure to demonstrate the transaction's alignment with prescribed exceptions or reasonable cause for accepting the cash loan. The decision highlighted the necessity for thorough examination and compliance with statutory provisions in tax matters.

This detailed analysis provides insights into the legal judgment's core issues, interpretations of relevant provisions, assessment of explanations provided, and considerations of exceptions and reasonable cause for penalty imposition under the Income Tax Act.