2006 (12) TMI 124 - HC - Income Tax

Loan in cash exceeding prescribed limit - AO found that the assessee had taken a cash loan violating the provisions of section 269SS and repaid the amount in cash violating section 269T - Tribunal was right in holding that penalty u/s 271D & 271E cannot be imposed for violation of section 269SS & 269T respectively if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine

Summary

Issues:
- Whether penalty under section 271D can be imposed for violation of section 269SS if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine?
- Whether penalty under section 271E can be imposed for violation of section 269T if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine?

Analysis:
1. The respondent-assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1997-98 and was found to have taken a cash loan violating section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and repaid the amount in cash violating section 269T. Penalties of Rs. 2,55,000 under section 271D and Rs. 60,000 under section 271E were imposed by the Assessing Officer.

2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) canceled the penalties, stating that the transactions of loans were genuine and the identity of lenders was not in doubt, as the business required cash purchases. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the transactions did not result in treating the loan as unexplained cash credit and there was no intention to contravene the provisions of section 269SS.

3. The Revenue appealed, arguing that sections 269SS and 269T are mandatory, and no mens rea needs to be proved before imposing a penalty. The Revenue contended that the assessee had no sufficient reasons to take the loans in cash.

4. The counsel for the assessee cited previous court decisions, emphasizing that if the transactions are genuine and bona fide, penalties should not be imposed, especially when there is no tax evasion. The court considered these arguments carefully.

5. Referring to previous court decisions, the court highlighted that if transactions are genuine and the taxpayer had valid reasons for not using account payee cheques or demand drafts, the authority imposing penalties has the discretion not to levy them.

6. The court found that both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal had concluded that the transactions were genuine, and there was no intention to evade tax. As such, the court held that it would not interfere with the findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the transactions.

7. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling against the Revenue and emphasizing that no substantial question of law arose in this case. The court found in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of genuine transactions and lack of intention to evade tax in determining the imposition of penalties.