2022 (7) TMI 1263 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - Journal entries - urgent need to make payment towards EPF - there was cash deposit in the bank account which is contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS (b) - HELD THAT - The assessee clearly established that the loan availed by the Director Sivaprasad Patnam is transferred to the assessee company because of its company is urgent need of cash/finance. The same were being availed by way of loan from various banks and directly credited into the account of the assessee company and necessary journal entries have been made in the book of the assessee company. Thus, there is no violation of Section 269SS - Therefore no question of levying penalty u/s. 271D relating to the journal entry - Thus, the finding made by the CIT(A) purely factual in nature, which does not require any interference and the same is hereby upheld. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue is hereby rejected and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty order under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the penalty order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara, under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The main contention of the Revenue was that the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,20,54,566/- was deleted by the CIT(A) without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer and without considering the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act.

3. The facts of the case revealed that the assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Pharma Instruments, had cash deposits in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act. The Revenue initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D based on these cash transactions.

4. The assessee explained that the transactions in question were loans transferred through banking channels and not cash transactions. The Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings for contravention of Section 269SS in the case of these loans.

5. The CIT(A) observed that the journal entries made by the assessee did not indicate cash transactions but were related to loans transferred through banking channels. The penalty was restricted to a specific cash transaction, and the balance loan amount did not fall within the contravention of Section 269SS.

6. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order, arguing that the penalty should not have been deleted as per the findings of the Assessing Officer and the provisions of Section 269SS.

7. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the loans availed by the Director and transferred to the company were urgent financial needs handled through banking channels. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 269SS, and the penalty under section 271D was not applicable to the journal entry amount.

8. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, stating that it was factual and did not require interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the penalty order deletion was upheld.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the appeal against the penalty order under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the judgments passed at different stages.