2010 (9) TMI 863 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271D - Share application money treated as loans or advances by the Assessing Officer - AO had treated the receipts of share application money as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 - Held that - Tribunal accepted the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the foundation that once the share application money is treated as an undisclosed income, the penalty proceedings under section 271D cannot be initiated proceeding on the foundation that it is a deposit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of share application money as loans or advances by the Assessing Officer.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
4. Tribunal's acceptance of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. Deletion of penalty under section 271D by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Consideration of substantial question of law regarding share application money received in cash.

Analysis:

1. The respondent-assessee received share application money amounting to Rs. 13,90,000 from 29 persons, which the Assessing Officer treated as loans or advances, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) challenging the treatment of share application money as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, stating that penalty proceedings under section 269SS read with section 271D were not valid as they nullified the finding that the amount was a deposit.

3. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), contesting the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that once the share application money is considered undisclosed income, penalty proceedings under section 271D could not have been initiated.

4. The Revenue raised a substantial question of law before the High Court, questioning the deletion of the penalty under section 271D by the Tribunal. The High Court noted that both the Commissioner and the Tribunal had concluded that since the Assessing Officer treated the amount as undisclosed income, it could not simultaneously be treated as a deposit.

5. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, found that the question raised by the Revenue did not apply to the current case. The Court emphasized that the question might be relevant in different factual circumstances but had no bearing on the present matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no costs imposed.