9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of circular No.556 dated 23.2.1990 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 3. Justification for cancellation of penalty under Section 271-D. Interpretation of Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The case involved a penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the assessee accepted a loan/deposit of more than Rs.20,000 otherwise than through an account payee cheque. The penalty was initially confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but was set aside by the Tribunal on appeal. The Tribunal considered the petitioner as a commission agent and referred to circular No.556 issued by the CBDT. The Tribunal held that the transaction was duly explained by the assessee, and relied on the decision in Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum.A.B.Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258, which emphasized that if cash payment was made on account of a reasonable belief, the penalty would not be justified. Application of circular No.556 dated 23.2.1990 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes: The Tribunal's decision was supported by circular No.556 dated 23.2.1990 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The circular clarified that in cases where a 'Kacha Arhatiya' sells goods belonging to an agriculturist, the sale proceeds left with the agent cannot be considered as a deposit made by the agriculturist. Furthermore, if the agent remits only a part of the sale proceeds to the agriculturist, the unremitted part does not qualify as a deposit. Therefore, the repayment of such sale proceeds does not fall within the purview of section 269T of the Act. This interpretation from the circular was crucial in determining the applicability of the penalty under Section 271D. Justification for cancellation of penalty under Section 271-D: The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under Section 271D was based on both the interpretation of the law and the application of the CBDT circular. The Tribunal found that the view taken was correct in law, considering the circular's guidance. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the cash transaction was adequately explained by the assessee. The judgment also highlighted the provision of section 273B, which provides for the non-imposition of penalties if there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 271D. The judgment emphasized that undue hardship could be mitigated by the discretionary power vested in the authority to impose penalties, especially in cases of genuine and bonafide transactions. Ultimately, the judgment answered the question against the revenue and in favor of the assessee, upholding the cancellation of the penalty. ---
|
