2013 (10) TMI 983 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty ou/s 271D - The appellant-company could not disburse the bonus due on Diwali to its workers and promised to make the payment of bonus in the first week of March, 1991. - Acceptance of cash loan in violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Held that - The question arises as to why the assessee issued cheques on November 16, 1990,. and November 17, 1990 to the Excise Department, when the assessee did not have sufficient balance in its bank account. Even if it was so then why it waited till December 5, 1990, and not arranged the amount immediately after the issue of the cheques. Had the assessee done so then it could have done it by taking this amount of Rs. 92,000 from the promoters of the company, through account payee cheques or draft which could have enabled the assessee to genuinely avoid penal action of the Excise Department, as well as penalty of the Income-tax Department, which had now to suffer on account of violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1991-92.

Analysis:
The appellant company failed to disburse the Diwali bonus to its workers and accepted a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from a finance company and Rs. 92,000 in cash from promoters/distributors. The penalty under section 271D was imposed for alleged contravention of section 269SS due to these cash credit entries. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the explanation and set aside the penalty, but the Tribunal restored the penalty. The Tribunal found that the urgency claimed by the appellant for disbursing the bonus and accepting the cash loan was not justified. The Tribunal concluded that there was no urgency in accepting the bearer cheque for bonus disbursement and that the cash amount could have been arranged through account payee cheques or draft to avoid penal action. The Tribunal held that the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory, and the contravention of section 269SS was established.

The Tribunal's order thoroughly addressed all factual aspects, and no legal issues or substantial questions of law were found for consideration under section 260A of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings, and the court cannot re-examine the explanation provided by the assessee. As the Tribunal's decision was final on facts, the court upheld the order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal against the penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 1991-92 was dismissed by the court, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on factual findings and the established contravention of section 269SS by the appellant company.