2017 (4) TMI 717 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271E and 271D - waiver of penalty u/s 273B - period of limitation - failure to abide by Sec. 269SS and 269T - cash payments - Held that - There is no dispute that notices issued to the assessee by the ld. ACIT, Kancheepuram u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271D and 271E of the Act were dated 31.8.2015. The penalty orders were also passed by ld. ACIT, Kancheepuram. Such penalty orders were passed on 29.02.2016 and was therefore well within the time limits. What is to be considered is the aggregate amount. No doubt by virtue of Section 273B of the Act, if an assessee could prove that the failure to abide by Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act was for a reasonable cause then levy of penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, could be excused. However, here in the case before us, first explanation of the assessee was that the amounts received were advances from its customers, so that employees of such customers who came for fueling of vehicles need not make payments in cash. Or in other words, as per the assessee it was to reduce cash handling by the workers of transporters, cab drivers etc. However, ld. ACIT has clearly demonstrated that no such adjustment against cost of fuel was ever done against the advance, on the other hand but such amounts were repaid by the assessee in cash. Coming to the contention of the ld. Authorised Representative that if the loans were disbelieved Sec. 68 of the Act alone could have been applied, ld. Assessing Officer having accepted the loans the line of argument is irrelevant. Considering these circumstances, we are of the opinion that penalty u/s. 271D as well as 271E of the Act for violation of Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act were rightly imposed, assessee having failed to give a reasonable cause for not levying such penalty. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting loans in cash beyond the prescribed limits under Section 269SS.
2. Levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for repaying loans in cash beyond the prescribed limits under Section 269T.
3. Validity of the penalty orders concerning the time limit for passing such orders.
4. Whether the transactions were genuine and whether the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were justified.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271D:

The assessee, operating a petrol pump, was found to have accepted cash payments and cash receipts from various parties, as reflected in the Sundry Debtors Ledger. The Assessing Officer noted that these transactions violated Section 269SS, which prohibits accepting loans or deposits in cash exceeding ?20,000. The assessee argued that each transaction was below ?20,000 and consolidated entries were made for convenience. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) observed that the advances were repeatedly taken from the same persons and repaid in cash, indicating a violation of Section 269SS. The ACIT concluded that the aggregate amount of loans received in cash exceeded the limit, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 271D.

2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271E:

Similarly, the ACIT noted that the assessee repaid loans in cash, which violated Section 269T, prohibiting repayment of loans or deposits in cash exceeding ?20,000. The assessee's explanation that the transactions were for customer convenience and to reduce cash handling by workers was not accepted. The ACIT demonstrated that no adjustments against the cost of fuel were made, and the amounts were repaid in cash. Consequently, a penalty under Section 271E was levied.

3. Validity of the Penalty Orders:

The assessee contended that the penalty orders were barred by limitation, arguing that the time limit started when the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings during the assessment. However, the tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's mention of the violation in the assessment order was only an observation and not an initiation of penalty proceedings. The notices issued by the ACIT were dated 31.08.2015, and the penalty orders were passed on 29.02.2016, within the time limits.

4. Genuineness of Transactions and Justification of Penalties:

The tribunal examined whether the transactions were genuine and whether the penalties were justified. The assessee's claim that the amounts were advances from customers for reducing cash handling was not substantiated, as the advances were repaid in cash without any adjustment against the cost of fuel. The tribunal noted that the aggregate amount of loans and repayments exceeded ?20,000, violating Sections 269SS and 269T. The assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with these provisions. The tribunal upheld the penalties, finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee, confirming the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E for violating Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalties were deemed justified as the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the violations. The orders were pronounced on 07.04.2017 at Chennai.