2023 (9) TMI 1023 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271D - contravention of provision of section 269SS - assessee company had received a loan in cash from one of its Director and the aforesaid loan was also repaid by the assessee company back to the Director in cash only - As per assessee since all the transactions have been accepted as genuine in the instant set of facts by the assessing officer, no penalty may be imposed - HELD THAT - We do agree with the proposition that if the assessee is able to prove certain imminent circumstances, which necessitated receipt of money in cash by the assessee company, then, levy of penalty u/s 271D may be considered to be deleted. However, in the instant facts, the assessee has not been able to demonstrate any emergency/imminent circumstances which necessitated the assessee company to receive aforesaid amount in cash from its Director. Since the cash was accepted by the assessee company on working days, the argument of the assessee company that these loans were taken for emergency payments cannot be accepted. Accordingly, looking into instant facts, we are of the considered view that acceptance of cash by the assessee company was not necessitated by any emergency/imminent circumstances. In the recent case of Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. 2021 (2) TMI 76 - SC ORDER dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where director of assessee-company obtained cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 as loan from a financier and deposited same in cash in bank account of company, merely because director took cash loans from financier and deposited it in current account of assessee-company on very same day and assessee utilized it to pay salaries, rent and EMI commitments, same could not be a ground to be taken as a mitigating factor to escape from rigour of levy of penalty under section 271D. In the case of K.V. George 2014 (1) TMI 712 - KERALA HIGH COURT held that where reasonable cause for receiving loan or deposit in cash was not proved by assessee, levy of penalty under section 271D was to be upheld. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the confirmation of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Condonation of Delay:
The delay of 396 days in filing the appeal was attributed to a mistake by the staff of the company's Director. The delay was condoned by the tribunal after considering the inadvertent nature of the mistake and the lack of objection from the Departmental Representative.

Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271D:
The assessing officer initiated proceedings under section 271D due to the company receiving a cash loan from its Director, which was repaid in cash during the same year. The company contended that the loan was utilized for regular business expenses. However, the assessing officer held that no emergency circumstances were demonstrated to justify the cash transactions, leading to the penalty imposition.

Decision by CIT(A):
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the company's appeal, emphasizing that the cash transactions with the Director did not have reasonable cause and were not necessitated by any emergency circumstances. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty under section 271D based on the company's habitual disregard for the provisions.

Tribunal's Decision:
The tribunal agreed that the genuineness of the transactions was not in question but emphasized that proving imminent circumstances was crucial to avoid the penalty under section 271D. The tribunal noted that the company failed to demonstrate any emergency need for the cash transactions and cited relevant case laws to support the decision. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271D, stating that the company's actions did not warrant interference.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the company's appeal, confirming the levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.