9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1063 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D of the Act - Violation of section 269SS of the Act Mode of taking certain loans or deposits Held that - Without giving any reason as to why he is not following the judgement in the case of Idhayam Publications Ltd. 2006 (1) TMI 97 - MADRAS High Court as relied upon by the assessee, the First Appellate Authority went on to confirm the penalty which is not a correct approach. The transaction does not fall within the meaning of loan or advance, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act - the promoter Director of the assessee company have contributed these amounts by withdrawing from the capital account in their respective proprietary concerns for the purpose of construction of building and purchase of machinery of the new company, it cannot be treated as a loan or deposit as contemplated u/s 269 SS - In any event shares were allocated by the company to the promoter directors for the amounts contributed the decision in Shri SidhData Ispat P.Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 846 - DELHI HIGH COURT and IP. INDIA PVT. LTD. 2011 (11) TMI 252 - DELHI HIGH COURT followed - no penalty can be levied thus, the penalty levied u/s 269SS of the Act set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Violation of S.269(SS) of the Act regarding amounts received by the company from its directors, penalty proceedings u/s 271'D', applicability of S.269SS in disclosed transactions for business exigencies, confirmation of penalty by Ld.CIT(A), reliance on case laws, diversion of company funds, and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar case. Violation of S.269(SS) - The appeal was against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the violation of S.269(SS) of the Act by the assessee company in receiving amounts from its directors, which led to penalty proceedings u/s 271'D'. The AO considered the amounts received as violating S.269(SS) and referred the matter for penalty proceedings. The assessee contended that the amounts were share application money, not loans or deposits, and were received due to business exigencies. However, the AO rejected this explanation, leading to the penalty being levied. Applicability of S.269SS - The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that contributions received from directors should not be treated as loans or deposits under S.269SS, citing relevant case laws. The contention was supported by cases where contributions were converted into share capital through share allotment. The argument emphasized that S.269SS should not apply in disclosed transactions for genuine business purposes and not involving tax evasion. The Ld.D.R., on the other hand, supported the penalty confirmation by Ld.CIT(A), alleging diversion of company funds without reasonable cause. Confirmation of Penalty - The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar matter. It was noted that the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty without providing a reason for not following the judgment cited by the assessee. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect and referred to the Madras High Court's decision, which emphasized that transactions not falling within the definition of loan or advance do not violate S.269SS. The Tribunal concluded that since the contributions were not loans or deposits and were converted into share capital, the penalty under S.269SS was unwarranted. Decision and Conclusion - Based on the arguments and case laws presented, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty levied under S.269SS. The decision highlighted that the contributions from directors were not loans or deposits, as they were converted into share capital, aligning with the principles established in relevant case laws. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the penalty and the allowance of the appeal. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant case laws, the Tribunal's decision, and the final conclusion reached in the appeal regarding the violation of S.269(SS) and the applicability of penalties in the context of contributions received from directors.
|
