9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 538 - HC - Income TaxPenalty proceedings u/s 271E - contravention of provisions of section 269T for repaying loan - whether assessment proceedings are necessary to levy penalty u/s 271E - The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, on 31.12.2003. Notice u/s 274 read with 271E of the Act was issued to the assessee on 12.06.2007 - It being a case of processing the return of income, there is no finding in the AO s order with regard to the applicability or otherwise of section 269T of the IT Act to the assessee s case. Relying upon Delhi High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Standard Brands Ltd.(2006 -TMI - 9804 - DELHI High Court ), the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 271E were not justified - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of penalty notice issuance without pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer. 3. Applicability of Section 269T regarding loan repayments. Issue 1: The appeal involved the interpretation of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, citing that the penalty notice was issued when there were no pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty action may only be permissible after a regular assessment has been framed, and since no such assessment order existed, the penalty proceedings were deemed unjustified. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Standard Brands Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 295 to support this position. Issue 2: The validity of the penalty notice issuance without pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer was a crucial point of contention. The Tribunal noted that the return of the assessee was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on 31.12.2003, while the penalty notice under Section 271E was issued on 12.06.2007, during a period when no proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that without a regular assessment order, the initiation of penalty proceedings was not justified, as per the Delhi High Court judgment referenced. Issue 3: Regarding the applicability of Section 269T concerning loan repayments, the Tribunal found that the assessee had made payments to M/s Babyloan Builders Pvt. Ltd. through account payee cheques or drafts, which allegedly contravened the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the payments were genuine, related to inter-company transfers for group housing and flat purchases, and were made for technical reasons without any tax evasion. The Tribunal further noted that the explanation provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the deletion of the penalty. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the absence of pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the reasonable cause provided by the assessee for the loan repayments made to M/s Babyloan Builders Pvt. Ltd.
|
