2015 (11) TMI 1192 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty imposed u/s 271D - violation of the provisions of section 269SS - CIT(A) deleted penalty - Held that - The account of the associate concern M/s Mahagun Developers Ltd. was credited by the assessee by passing a journal entry and it did not involve acceptance of any loan or deposit or money. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were not applicable and the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the Act was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the department against the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had filed its income tax return declaring an income of a certain amount, which was later assessed by the assessing officer. The issue arose when the assessing officer noted certain transactions involving the transfer of amounts between the assessee and an associate company, including payments for lease rent and other expenses. The assessing officer imposed a penalty under section 271D for these transactions, alleging a violation of the Act.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the assessee and the associate company. It was noted that no cash loan or deposit was taken by the assessee from the associate company, and the entries made in the books of accounts were to acknowledge debts related to building renovation and other expenses. The Commissioner found no violation of section 269SS of the Act and subsequently deleted the penalty imposed under section 271D.

The department appealed this decision, but the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were adjustments made through journal entries between the assessee and the associate company and did not involve acceptance of any cash loan or deposit. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 269SS were not applicable in this scenario. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 271D was deemed unjustified and was rightfully deleted by the Commissioner.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, affirming the decision to delete the penalty. The judgment emphasized that the transactions in question did not contravene the provisions of the Act, as they were merely book entries and did not involve the acceptance of any cash loan or deposit. The Tribunal's decision was in line with established legal principles and precedents, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.