2017 (8) TMI 447 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271D - contravention of provision of Section 269SS - reasonable cause for not accepting loans by way of account payee cheque or demand draft - accepting loan by book adjustment, through journal entries - Held that - The assessee has filed a paper book containing details of loan ledgers of parties appeared in the books of account of M/s. Atlanta International and also ledger accounts of loan creditors in the books of accounts. On perusal of details field by the assessee, we find that these loans have been transferred by book adjustment by way journal entries. We further noticed that the assessee has paid interest on these loans after duly deducting applicable TDS. We further observed that, it s not a case of A.O that these loans are not genuine transactions. The AO neither doubted genuineness of the loan nor these are not a bonafide transaction or that the entries were made with a view to evade tax. In the absence of any finding as to genuineness of the transactions or the loans were accepted to evade taxes, penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271D of the Act, merely there is violation of Section 269SS of the Act. These loans are genuine transaction which were accepted by way of cheques by its sister concern. The assessee claims that it was under the bonafide belief that, acceptance of loans or deposit by book adjustment would not attract the provision of Sections 269SS of the Act. There is a reasonable cause, for failure to comply with the provision of Section 269SS of the Act, therefore penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271D of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue revolves around whether the assessee violated Section 269SS by accepting loans through book adjustments rather than through account payee cheques or drafts. According to the Assessing Officer (A.O.), the assessee accepted loans exceeding the prescribed limits without using the prescribed modes, thereby contravening Section 269SS. The assessee argued that the loans were accepted by book adjustments due to the insistence of their bankers for additional capital contributions and believed that this method did not violate Section 269SS.

2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The A.O. levied a penalty of ?21,51,464/- under Section 271D, which is equal to the amount of loan/deposit taken or accepted in contravention of Section 269SS. The assessee contended that the transactions were genuine and done under a bonafide belief that book adjustments were permissible. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that accepting loans by book adjustments was indeed a violation of Section 269SS.

3. Reasonable Cause under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for accepting loans through book adjustments, invoking Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if a reasonable cause is proven. The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for not using account payee cheques or drafts. The Tribunal found that the loans were genuine transactions, accepted due to business exigencies, and there was no intent to evade tax. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (India) Ltd., which held that in the absence of any finding that the transactions were not bonafide or were intended to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee could be considered reasonable.

Judgment:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had accepted loans through book adjustments due to genuine business needs and under a bonafide belief that it did not violate Section 269SS. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B, thus granting immunity from the penalty under Section 271D. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to delete the penalty levied under Section 271D.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty imposed under Section 271D was ordered to be deleted. The judgment emphasized that genuine transactions and bonafide explanations could provide immunity from penalties if they fall under the reasonable cause provisions of Section 273B.