2014 (8) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D and 271E Cash loan transactions treated as undisclosed income u/s 68 waiver of penalty u/s 273B - Held that - The Tribunal have considered the order of the Assessing Authority that it is a case of unexplained cash receipt and treated as own income of the assessee, which is subjected to tax u/s 68 of the Act, the question of treating it as transaction in violation of Sections 269-SS or 269-T does not arise as it stands mutually excluded Relying upon Diwan Enterprisess V. Commissioner of Income-Tax and others 1998 (11) TMI 27 - DELHI High Court the Tribunal accepted the stand of the assessee that there was no justification for imposition of penalty u/s 271-D and 271-E, as it is not a transaction in contravention of Section 269-SS and 269-T there was no reason to take a different view as the order of the Tribunal is to be upheld which justifies a case of undisclosed income at the hands of the assessee subject to tax u/s 68 of the Act. Loan transactions - Loan transaction relatable to the money received from Meenakshi for a sum of ₹ 25 Lakhs is concerned, the Tribunal was inclined to accept the reasoning of the CIT(A) that it is a case, where the assessee, under compelling circumstances, had accepted cash loan and, therefore no penalty need be levied by invoking the provisions of Section 273-B of the Act - Tribunal have gone into the genuineness of the transaction and the reasons attributed by the assessee for obtaining the loan in view of the compelling circumstances, which is covered by relevant documents to support a transaction and, the authorities have rightly interfered with the penalty imposed by invoking the provisions of Section 273-B of the Act Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that no penalty is leviable under Sections 271-D and 271-E in a case of cash loan transaction recorded by the Department as a case of undisclosed income subject to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty under Section 271-D is not leviable on the assessee on the ground of exceptional circumstances in terms of Section 273-B.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty under Sections 271-D and 271-E for Undisclosed Income
The core of the first issue revolves around whether penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Income Tax Act are applicable when the cash loan transactions are treated as undisclosed income under Section 68. The facts reveal that the assessee borrowed Rs. 1 Crore and repaid Rs. 50 Lakhs in cash during the assessment year 2009-2010, which the Assessing Authority treated as income from unexplained sources under Section 68. The Department initiated penalty proceedings for these transactions, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ruled that since the transactions were already treated as undisclosed income under Section 68, the provisions of Section 269-SS (which prohibits cash transactions above a certain limit) would not apply. This decision was upheld by the Tribunal, which cited the Delhi High Court's rulings in Diwan Enterprisess V. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Standard Brands Ltd., where it was held that treating the amount as income for tax purposes and simultaneously as a loan for penalty purposes would be self-contradictory. Therefore, the penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E were not justified.

Issue 2: Penalty under Section 271-D and Exceptional Circumstances under Section 273-B
The second issue pertains to a Rs. 25 Lakhs cash loan received by the assessee from an individual named Meenakshi. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's explanation that the loan was taken under compelling circumstances and was genuine, thus invoking Section 273-B, which allows for the waiver of penalties if there is a reasonable cause for the failure. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the identity and genuineness of the transaction were proven and that the loan was necessary to meet urgent financial obligations. The Tribunal also observed that the Department did not provide any evidence to counter the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal's reliance on Section 273-B, which states that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure, was deemed appropriate.

Conclusion:
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. It held that the penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E were not applicable as the transactions were treated as undisclosed income under Section 68, and the assessee had demonstrated reasonable cause for the cash loan from Meenakshi, thus invoking Section 273-B. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld, confirming that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.