9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 113 - HC - Income TaxDeleting the penalty imposed under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Violation of provision of Section 269-SS of the Act - Held that - It was pointed out that it has been established from the materials on record that the amounts were received in cash because of urgency of business needs. It is further pointed out that the Tax Payer being a Civil Contractor required urgent funds and he approached his brothers Shri Jayeshbhai Thakkar and Shri Raghubhai S. Bhatt and received cash for incurring day-to-day business expenditure. From those facts, it was pointed out that there was nothing to suggest that the aforesaid transactions were not genuine. Similarly, as regards the question of penalty imposed on the Tax Payer under Section 271-E of the Act - Held that - The payment of Rs.81,970/- was made through pay order and not in cash by the Tax Payer to M/s. I.V.P. Ltd. In such circumstances, it was found by the CIT (Appeals) that it was neither a cash payment nor a repayment of loan. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find that no substantial question of law is involved. The finding on the question of reasonableness as provided under the Act is basically the question of facts and we do not find any reason to interfere with such concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence - Appeal is allowed in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
- Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Determination of whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the deletion of penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act - Analysis of technical violation of Section 269-SS of the Act - Examination of the reasons provided for cash transactions and penalties imposed - Assessment of the reasonableness of the assessee's explanations - Dismissal of both Tax Appeal No.2664 of 2010 and Tax Appeal No.2665 of 2010 Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act was brought by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 2001-2002. The main issue in this appeal was whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the deletion of penalties of Rs.8,45,000/- and Rs.1,02,670/- under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Tribunal and the CIT (Appeals) found that there was a technical violation of Section 269-SS of the Act in the case. However, both authorities concluded that the penalty should not be imposed as the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure. The Tribunal highlighted that most cash amounts were received from relatives of the Tax Payer and were related to genuine transactions, such as loans advanced to family members for business needs. 3. Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 271-E of the Act, it was found that the payments made were not in cash but through pay orders or advances to partnership firms involving family members of the Tax Payer. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal agreed that these transactions did not constitute cash payments or loan repayments, thus justifying the deletion of the penalty. 4. The Court observed that the question of reasonableness, as provided under the Act, was essentially a question of fact. Since both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal had concurred in favor of the assessee based on the evidence presented, the Court found no grounds to interfere with their findings. Consequently, no substantial question of law was identified, leading to the summary dismissal of Tax Appeal No.2664 of 2010. 5. In a similar vein, Tax Appeal No.2665 of 2010 was also dismissed summarily as it revolved around Section 271-E of the Act and presented analogous facts to the first appeal. The Court reiterated the reasoning applied in the previous appeal to justify the dismissal of Tax Appeal No.2665 of 2010. 6. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed based on the findings that no substantial question of law was involved in the cases, and the concurrent decisions of the lower authorities in favor of the assessee were upheld.
|
