2020 (10) TMI 619 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271E - breach of provisions of Sec. 269T - HELD THAT - The assessee has narrated the circumstances in relation to the cash payments to four parties. Assessee has attempted to demonstrate from the ledger account that the outstanding has been carried forward from the earlier years and a part payment was also made in the preceding years as a measure of discharge of liability arising from purchase of tobacco products. Similar payment in cash has been made in the earlier year which has not been disputed by the Revenue. The presumption of bona fide good faith would, thus, arise in favour of the assessee. Mere nomenclature in a particular manner in a balance sheet will not be conclusive for determination of nature of transaction. The stand of the assessee towards purchase of tobacco is consistent and emanating from the orders of the lower authorities. Are inclined to appreciate the stand of the assessee in affirmative on merits. On merits, the case of the assessee deserves to be accepted. Hence, the penalty imposed u/s 271E by the competent authority (JCIT) is set-aside and quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged breach of provisions of Sec. 269T.
2. Legal objection regarding the formation of 'satisfaction' by the Assessing Officer for the penalty.
3. Merits of the case concerning the nature of cash payments made to parties.

Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271E:
The case revolved around the imposition of a penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act for an alleged breach of provisions of Sec. 269T. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of ?9,79,104 on the assessee for repaying outstanding loans in cash, which is prohibited under the law. The assessee contended that the payment made was towards the discharge of liabilities from earlier years and not loans or deposits as per Sec. 269T. The legal objection raised by the assessee emphasized the necessity of the AO recording 'satisfaction' for the penalty imposition, citing relevant judicial precedents. The Revenue argued that the AO's 'Office Note' recommending the penalty to the Joint Commissioner indicated the necessary 'satisfaction,' and the AO's rank was not a hindrance to the penalty imposition.

2. Legal Objection on 'Satisfaction' Formation:
The legal objection raised by the assessee regarding the 'satisfaction' formation by the AO was analyzed by the Tribunal. It was observed that the AO, being of a lower rank than the Joint Commissioner authorized to impose the penalty, had forwarded an 'Office Note' for penalty consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's role was to recommend the penalty, and the 'satisfaction' for penalty imposition lay with the competent authority. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's arguments, stating that the AO's conduct in forwarding the 'Office Note' indicated the necessary 'satisfaction' for penalty imposition.

3. Merits of the Case - Nature of Cash Payments:
Regarding the merits of the case, the assessee presented evidence showing that the cash payments were part of the discharge of liabilities from earlier years related to the purchase of tobacco products. The Tribunal noted that similar payments were made in cash in previous years, which were not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal acknowledged the consistency in the assessee's stand and the ledger accounts, leading to a presumption of good faith. It was concluded that the nature of the transactions was in line with the assessee's explanation, and the penalty imposed under Section 271E was set aside and quashed based on the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271E after considering both the legal objections raised and the merits of the case.