9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1609 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - accepting in cash loan/ deposit/ transactions made through journal entries in excess of ₹20,000/-in violation of the provisions of section 269SS - reasonable cause under section 273B - CIT-A deleted addition as genuineness of transactions made through journal entries is not in doubt and consequently there is a reasonable cause for accepting in cash loan/ deposit/ transactions made through journal entries in excess of ₹20,000/- - HELD THAT - In view of the judgement of Lodha developers Pvt. Ltd 2018 (2) TMI 603 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd 2012 (6) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it is held that where loan / deposit has been repaid by day to day accounts of the parties through journal entries, it must be held that the assessee has committed default for the contravention of provisions of section 269SS or 269T as the case may be. But the Hon ble Bombay High Court has clarified the position with effect from 12.06.2012 date when the judgement was pronounced and prior the date of decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd (supra) there was a reasonable cause for the assessee to receive deposit of loan or repayment of the same through journal entries. Accordingly, the assessee s case is squarely falls under a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act and therefore, in our view, penalty levied by the addl. CIT under section 271D of the Act has rightly been deleted by CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Penalty under section 271D for violating section 269SS by accepting cash transactions exceeding ?20,000 through journal entries. Analysis: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271D for accepting cash transactions exceeding ?20,000 through journal entries, violating section 269SS. The CIT(A) based the deletion on the genuineness of the transactions and the reasonable cause for accepting such transactions. The Revenue contended that the penalty should not have been deleted due to the violation of section 269SS. The CIT(A) justified the assessee's actions by citing precedents and the timing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. The CIT(A) highlighted that prior to this judgment, there were favorable decisions for the assessee, providing a reasonable cause for their actions. During the hearing, the assessee argued that the transactions in question did not qualify as loans or deposits under explanation (III) to section 269SS. The assessee relied on a Bombay High Court decision in a similar case involving the same group of companies, where the penalty was deleted based on reasonable cause under section 273B. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found that the transactions were made through journal entries to raise funds, adjust balances, consolidate debts, or correct errors, without any adverse findings on the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal concluded that there was a reasonable cause for not complying with section 269SS based on the precedents and the factual circumstances. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in the case of Lodha developers Pvt. Ltd and the decision in Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It emphasized that prior to the judgment date of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd, there was a reasonable cause for accepting transactions through journal entries. Therefore, the penalty levied by the addl. CIT under section 271D was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming the deletion of the penalty. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the reasonable cause for the transactions made through journal entries before the judgment date of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd, as established by precedents and legal interpretations. The penalty under section 271D was deemed unjustified in this context, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
