2017 (8) TMI 615 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty under Sections 271E and 271D - violation of Sections 269SS and 269T by reason of receipt of cash loan and repayment of loan in cash during the same assessment year - existence of substantial question of law - Held that - Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arrived at the factual finding that provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T were clearly attracted as the contention of the representative of the Assessee that each of the transaction and repayment were below 20, 000.00 was unsubstantiated. The Assessee appealed before the Tribunal and the appeals have also been dismissed holding that violation of Sections 269SS and 269T of the IT Act attract penalty. The imposition of penalty has been upheld. An appeal lies under Section 260-A of the IT Act only when there is a substantial question of law. We find that there is no question of law involved in this appeal much less any substantial question of law. Right of appeal is not automatic. Right of appeal is conferred by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal only in a case which involves substantial questions of law it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the Assessing Officer Appellate Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Hence both these appeals cannot be entertained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of Sections 269SS and 269T in relation to penalty imposition.
3. Determination of substantial question of law for appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involved appeals against the penalty imposed under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-2013. The appellant, running a petrol pump, disclosed income in the return of income. The penalty was levied due to violations of Sections 269SS and 269T concerning cash transactions related to loans received and repaid during the assessment year. The penalty amount imposed was contested through appeals which were subsequently rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The interpretation of Sections 269SS and 269T was crucial in determining the penalty imposition. Section 269SS prohibits accepting loans or deposits exceeding a specified amount in cash, while Section 269T restricts the repayment of loans or deposits in cash above a certain limit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the transactions in question breached these sections, leading to the penalty imposition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the factual nature of the findings.

3. The judgment also delved into the requirement of a substantial question of law for filing an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. Citing legal precedents, the court outlined the criteria for determining what constitutes a substantial question of law. It highlighted that the presence of a debatable legal issue or a violation of settled legal principles could qualify as substantial questions of law. The court concluded that in the absence of such substantial questions of law, the appeals could not be entertained, as the right of appeal is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both Tax Case Appeals, emphasizing the need for substantial questions of law to be present for appeals under the IT Act. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to legal provisions regarding cash transactions and penalties under the Income Tax Act, while also clarifying the criteria for determining substantial questions of law for appellate purposes.