9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. 2. Limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Purpose and applicability of Sections 269SS and 269T as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 387. 4. Nature of the transaction as either a loan or deposit. 5. Technical and venial nature of the default. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining Penalty under Section 271D: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 16,12,000 imposed under Section 271D without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances. The appellant argued that the transaction was genuine, involving no black money, and hence did not justify the imposition of the penalty. 2. Limitation for Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 275: The appellant argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 12th June 2003, nearly seven years after the relevant assessment year, violating the limitation prescribed under Section 275. The appellant emphasized that penalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time, as the prolonged delay was unjust and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed, citing the decision in Noble Pictures vs. Jt. CIT, where proceedings initiated after a long delay were deemed barred by limitation. 3. Purpose and Applicability of Sections 269SS and 269T: The appellant highlighted that the intent behind Sections 269SS and 269T, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 387, was to curb transactions involving black money. Since the Revenue accepted the transaction as genuine and there was no involvement of unaccounted cash, the appellant argued that there was no violation of these sections. The Tribunal concurred, referencing the case of Farrukhabad Investment India Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT, which supported the appellant's claim that genuine transactions do not attract penalties under these sections. 4. Nature of the Transaction as Either a Loan or Deposit: The appellant contended that the transaction was neither a loan nor a deposit, as the amount was given by a trustee to the trust for specific purposes, such as purchasing land and meeting urgent construction needs. The Tribunal agreed, citing various decisions, including Chandra Cement Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT and Mohan Karkare vs. Dy. CIT, which held that transactions between closely connected entities, such as trustees and their trusts, do not constitute loans or deposits under Section 269SS. 5. Technical and Venial Nature of the Default: The appellant argued that even if there was a default, it was of a technical and venial nature, as the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt. The Tribunal accepted this argument, referencing the decision in Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, which stated that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches where there is no intention to evade tax. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were initiated after an unreasonable delay, the transaction was genuine, and there was no violation of Sections 269SS and 269T. The Tribunal also held that the transaction was neither a loan nor a deposit and that any default was technical and venial. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
