2015 (9) TMI 1102 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271E - violating the provisions of section 269SS and Section 269T - Held that - On a consideration of the entire factual matrix and the judicial precedent thereon in the facts of the present case, we are of the view that there was bonafide belief on the part of the assessee that the transaction with the Directors and the shareholders for meeting urgent cash requirements for running the business would not result in any violations. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings of the parties before the Bench and the mandate of Section 273B of the Act, we hold that the explanation offered by the assessee company being bonafide constitutes a reasonable cause and being satisfied by the same considering the judicial precedent cited, we accept the same. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside in both the appeals and the penalty imposed u/s 271D and 271E accordingly is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Violation of sections 269SS and 269T leading to penalty imposition under sections 271D and 271E.

Analysis:

1. Violation of Section 269SS and Section 269T:
- The appellant, engaged in furniture manufacturing, received and repaid loans in cash, violating provisions of sections 269SS and 269T.
- The AO initiated penalties under sections 271D and 271E based on these violations.

2. Explanation and Penalties Imposed:
- The appellant explained that loans were taken from directors and shareholders for business needs.
- Despite explanations, penalties totaling Rs. 3,05,000 were imposed, which the appellant challenged before CIT(A) unsuccessfully.

3. Challenge and Submissions Before Tribunal:
- The appellant, still aggrieved, appealed before the Tribunal.
- Arguments included that the transactions were genuine, made for business exigencies, and involved known, tax-paying individuals from the same family.

4. Tribunal Decision and Reasoning:
- After considering submissions and precedents, the Tribunal found a bonafide belief by the appellant in the transactions with directors and shareholders.
- The Tribunal held that the explanation offered constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, leading to the quashing of penalties under sections 271D and 271E.

5. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellant, setting aside the penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E.
- The decision was announced in the open court, granting relief to the appellant based on the bonafide belief in the transactions and the reasonable cause established.

This detailed analysis covers the violation of sections 269SS and 269T, the explanations provided by the appellant, the imposition of penalties, the arguments before the Tribunal, the Tribunal's decision based on bonafide belief, and the ultimate relief granted to the appellant by quashing the penalties under sections 271D and 271E.