9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 240 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271-D - default u/s 269SS - HELD THAT - Assessee is an agriculturist selling his crop through M/s Kundan Lal Sons, Panchkula and he was receiving the amount against the crops from the said Commission Agent, therefore it cannot be said that the assessee received or paid amounts in cash as a deposit or loan rather the amounts received in cash were against the agriculture crops, therefore the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the assessee s case. See HISSARIA BROTHERS. 2006 (7) TMI 163 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT . In the present case also the amount in question was received by the assessee against the sale of the crops so it was neither the loan nor the deposit, therefore the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were not applicable and as such penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271D of the Act was not justified, accordingly the same is deleted. Penalty u/s 271E - contravention of the provisions of Section 269T - making the payments of the amount received by the assessee against the crop from the Commission Agent - HELD THAT - As already mentioned in the former part of this order while deciding the issue relating to the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act, that the transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) under section 271E of the Act is also deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Consideration of cash transaction as a loan from M/s Kundan Lal & Sons. 3. Non-consideration of the assessee's submissions. 4. Penalty confirmation against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Additional grounds of appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271-D: The Assessee filed a return of income declaring ?2,32,600/- plus agricultural income of ?4,55,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was framed at the returned income. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) noticed that the assessee accepted cash loans of ?4,50,000/- on 08.05.2013 and ?4,00,000/- on 11.05.2013 from M/s Kundan Lal & Sons, Panchkula, violating Section 269SS of the Act. The A.O. issued a notice under Section 271D r.w.s 274, and the assessee contended that the amount was received in the normal course of business and not as a loan. However, the A.O. imposed a penalty of ?8,50,000/- under Section 271D. 2. Consideration of Cash Transaction as a Loan: The assessee argued that the amount received was an advance against agricultural crops to be sold through the Commission Agent, a common practice in the agriculture sector. The assessee provided a statement of accounts from the Commission Agent and cited various case laws to support the claim. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence of natural calamity and the explanation was an afterthought. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant's name did not appear in the "Girdawri" and concluded that the appellant, being a property dealer, did not justify the cash receipt as a business exigency. 3. Non-consideration of the Assessee's Submissions: The assessee reiterated that the amount received was an advance against agricultural crops and not a loan or deposit, thus not attracting the provisions of Section 269SS. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee cited several case laws, including CIT Vs. Manohar Lal Thakral and CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros, to argue that the transactions were part of normal business practices in the agriculture sector. 4. Penalty Confirmation Against the Facts and Circumstances: The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an agriculturist, sold crops through M/s Kundan Lal & Sons, receiving amounts against the crops. The Tribunal found that the transactions were related to the sale of agricultural produce and not loans or deposits. Citing the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable, and the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were not justified. 5. Additional Grounds of Appeal: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that the amounts received were against the sale of crops and not loans or deposits. The penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were related to the sale of agricultural crops, and thus, the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable. Consequently, the penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were deleted, and both appeals of the Assessee were allowed.
|
