9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 19 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - contravention of the provision under Section 269SS - whether the explanation given by the assessee has a reasonable cause to embark on such transaction, which would fall within the provisions of Section 269SS? - Held that - Though several documents have been submitted by the assessee, there is nothing to show that there was urgency for the assessee to avail the loan in cash in violation of Section 269SS and that the Assessing Officer has given a detailed reasoning as to why he finds that such a transaction would not come under the exception clause of Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has confirmed the said finding of fact. Being a pure finding of fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In fact, the assessee himself has relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income -Tax V. Balaji Traders reported in (2006 (12) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Deccan Designs (India) P. Ltd. reported in (2010 (7) TMI 818 - Madras High Court) wherein this Court clearly held that unless there is any inconsistency in the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal or the Authorities concerned, the Court should not interfere with such a finding of fact. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Penalty imposition under Section 271D for accepting cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. 2. Justification for penalty imposition based on turnover and loan amount proportion. 3. Reasoning behind the necessity of cash borrowings for business exigencies. Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act on the assessee for accepting a cash loan of Rs. 6,60,000 in contravention of Section 269SS. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings after the assessee's explanation was deemed unsatisfactory. The order under Section 271D highlighted that the loans were accepted in cash to maintain cash balance for preparing demand drafts, despite no urgency in the transactions. The penalty was imposed due to the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS, as no reasonable cause was proven for the violation. Issue 2: Justification for Penalty Imposition The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, confirming the penalty imposition. It was emphasized that the genuineness of transactions alone could not exempt the assessee from penalty if a reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS was not established. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate any compelling circumstances necessitating cash borrowings, leading to the penalty confirmation. The decision cited legal precedents emphasizing the need for a reasonable cause to avoid penalty under Section 271D, which the assessee could not substantiate in this case. Issue 3: Necessity of Cash Borrowings for Business Exigencies The assessee argued that cash borrowings were essential to settle pending bills promptly and secure competitive prices for further consignments. However, the Tribunal found this reasoning insufficient to justify the violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal held that the absence of a compelling situation requiring cash loans for business exigencies did not provide a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the statutory provisions. The decision emphasized the importance of proving beyond doubt the existence of mitigating circumstances to avoid penalty under Section 271D. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to confirm the penalty under Section 271D. The judgment underscored the necessity of establishing a reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory provisions to avoid penalties, emphasizing the importance of factual findings and legal precedents in such cases.
|
