9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 846 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - Disallowance of share application amounts in cash - ITAT deleted the levy - Held that - As decided in CIT, West Bengal I Versus Vegetable Products Limited 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT where two High Courts had confirmed a view acceptable to the assessee where as two other High Courts had taken a diametrically opposite view, interpretation which is favourable to the assessee, that cannot be considered as an unacceptable or untenable one, at least for purposes of penalty. Thus it is held that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal since there were two possible views one directly in favour of the assessee is need to be taken as per COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RUGMINI RAM RAGAV SPINNERS P. LTD 2007 (7) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT that the share application money was not deposit or loan under the provisions of Section 269T and therefore, the penalty u/s 271D was liable to be deleted as Tribunal rightly held that cash payments pertains to refund of share application money and not repayment of deposit or loan - in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of ITAT's order deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,51,47,523/- under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the addition of Rs. 1,48,82,000/- and Rs. 98,30,000/- to the assessee's income. 3. Compliance with Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act regarding cash transactions. 4. Applicability of penalties under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. 5. Interpretation of "reasonable cause" under Section 273B in the context of penalties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of ITAT's Order Deleting the Penalty: The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 3,51,47,523/- imposed under Section 271D. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision, which found that the share application money received in cash was not unexplained and was supported by affidavits, income statements, balance sheets, and other documents. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., which held that if the identity of the share applicants is established, the amount cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the company. 2. Validity of the Addition to the Assessee's Income: The CIT (Appeals) deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,82,000/- and Rs. 98,30,000/- made by the AO. The CIT (Appeals) reasoned that the share capital received in cash was mostly during the construction period and was paid by directors and their relatives. The identity of the payers was established, and the transactions were confirmed by affidavits and other documents. The CIT (Appeals) concluded that the addition was not justified as the receipt of cash as share application money is not prohibited by law. 3. Compliance with Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act: The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS, which prohibits cash transactions above a certain limit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the AO's doubts about the creditworthiness of the share applicants were based on surmise and conjecture without any cogent material. 4. Applicability of Penalties under Section 271D: The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was not applicable as the share application money was not considered a loan or deposit under Section 269SS. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd., which held that share application money is not a deposit or loan and thus not subject to penalty under Section 271E. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Vegetable Products Limited, which stated that when two views are possible, the view favorable to the assessee should be adopted. 5. Interpretation of "Reasonable Cause" under Section 273B: The Tribunal and the CIT (Appeals) found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for receiving the share application money in cash. The Madras High Court in Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd. held that if the assessee's explanation is plausible, no penalty can be imposed under Section 273B. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's belief that the money received was for share allotment and not a deposit or loan was reasonable, and the Revenue failed to provide any compelling evidence to the contrary. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no infirmity in the order. The Court noted that the share applicants' identities were disclosed, and all material particulars were provided to the AO. Given the two possible views on the matter, the Court favored the one in favor of the assessee, consistent with the principle established in CIT v. Vegetable Products Limited. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
