2009 (7) TMI 116 - HC - Income Tax

Advance amount received otherwise than by way of account payee cheque or bank draft held that - assessing authority had added Rs. 1,00,000 which is the same amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide order dated December 1, 1993, had held that the aforesaid amount had been taken as advance from M/s. Babu Ram Ganga Ram against subsequent purchase of pulses made from the assessee respondent. From the order of the Tribunal, we find that against advance of Rs. 1 lakh, pulses worth Rs. 1,02,957 have been supplied to M/s. Babu Ram Ganga Ram, Suriyawan, Varanasi, on various dates which also substantiates that the amounts in question were advanced towards future supply of goods. The provision under section 269SS of the Act is applicable only in case of loan or deposit and does not cover cash advance for purpose of goods in future provisions of section 269S not applicable penalty not to be imposed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding cash advances.
2. Application of penalty under section 271D for violation of section 269SS.

Issue 1: Interpretation of section 269SS:
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to a cash advance received by the assessee. The assessing authority imposed a penalty under section 271D for violating section 269SS by accepting Rs. 1,00,000 in cash. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. The High Court analyzed the facts and held that the amount received was an advance for future supply of goods, not a loan or deposit. As per the judgment, section 269SS applies to loans or deposits, not cash advances for goods. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the provisions of section 269SS were not applicable in this case, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld.

Issue 2: Application of penalty under section 271D:
The assessing authority had initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D for the alleged violation of section 269SS by the assessee. The penalty was imposed, but it was later set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the penalty was rightly imposed and the Tribunal erred in deleting it. However, the High Court, after examining the facts, found that the amount received was in the nature of an advance for goods and not a loan or deposit. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under section 271D. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the interpretation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the context of cash advances for goods. The Court held that the provisions of section 269SS do not apply to cash advances for future supply of goods, and therefore, the penalty under section 271D was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.