2012 (10) TMI 318 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D Share application money receive in cash - U/s 269SS it s deposit or not - Assessee accepted share application money in cash from director AO initiated penalty proceeding considered it as deposit - Prohibition contained in sec. 269SS - Held that - As the provisions of sec. 269SS were brought on statute to curb the practice of black money in cash transaction. Though the provisions are attracted that it may be lawful to impose penalty, but in case of technical or venial breach with bonafide belief, observation comes to assessee s rescue as decided by Hon ble Supreme Court s in case of Hindustan Steels Ltd.(1969 (8) TMI 31). Therefore assessee is under bonafide belief that the amounts could have been accepted by cash. Accordingly, the penalty levied u/s 271D is deleted. Decision in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the sustenance of penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Interpretation of the nature of share application money as a deposit.
- Consideration of bona fide belief in accepting cash for share application money.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to accepting cash deposits for share application money. The Assessing Officer considered the cash deposits from a director as violating the provisions of the Act, leading to penalty proceedings.

2. The appellant contended that the acceptance of cash for share application money was based on a bona fide belief, supported by various judicial authorities' decisions. However, the Assessing Officer relied on a High Court judgment that deemed such cash deposits as shares' nature until allotment, attracting penalties.

3. The appellant argued that the diverse judicial opinions on the nature of share application money created a debate, leading to a bona fide belief in accepting cash. Citing the Supreme Court's stance on penalties for technical breaches, the appellant sought relief from the penalty.

4. The appellant referenced judgments where penalties for similar cases were deleted based on the interpretation of loan or deposit under the law. The appellant highlighted the distinction between loans and deposits, emphasizing the technical nature of the default in this case.

5. The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of cash for share application money, the subsequent increase in authorized capital, and the judicial opinions on the issue. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's bona fide belief in accepting cash was reasonable, leading to the deletion of the penalty under section 271D.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the bona fide belief in accepting cash for share application money and the technical nature of the default. The decision aligned with previous judgments and the Supreme Court's guidance on penalties for technical breaches.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of the law and the appellant's bona fide belief.