9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS. 2. Penalty u/s 271E for violation of section 269T. 3. Bar of limitation for penalty proceedings u/s 275. Summary: Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS The assessee challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 43,05,000 u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, arguing that the penalty order was barred by the limitation period prescribed in section 275. The facts revealed that during a search at the residence of Shri Niranjan J. Shah, certain loose papers and computer floppies were found, indicating unrecorded cash transactions. The Assessing Officer relied on the presumption u/s 132(4A) and imposed penalties u/s 271D and 271E. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings initiated on 21-2-1994 were barred by limitation as the penalty was levied on 28-9-1994. However, the Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order dated 21-3-1994, thus the penalty was levied within the permissible period under section 275(1)(c). On merits, the Tribunal examined the applicability of the presumption u/s 132(4A) and concluded that it is applicable only against the person from whom the documents were found and not against third parties. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption is rebuttable. Shri Niranjan Shah had retracted his statement and denied any cash transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal held that without corroborative evidence, the print-out of the computer floppy could not be used to prove cash borrowing by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271D was cancelled. Issue 2: Penalty u/s 271E for violation of section 269T The department levied a penalty of Rs. 8,77,350 u/s 271E on the ground that the assessee made repayment of loans in cash to Shri Niranjan Shah. The assessee argued that section 269T, as it stood at the relevant time, prohibited the repayment of deposits, not loans. The Tribunal noted that the word 'loans' was inserted in section 269T by the Finance Bill 2002. Since it was held that the assessee did not borrow money in cash, it was also held that the assessee did not make any repayment in cash. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271E was also cancelled. Issue 3: Bar of limitation for penalty proceedings u/s 275 The Tribunal examined whether the penalty was levied within the time permissible under section 275. It was determined that the penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order dated 21-3-1994, and the penalty was levied on 28-9-1994, which was within the six-month period from the end of March 1994. Therefore, the penalty was not barred by limitation. Conclusion: Both the appeals by the assessee were allowed, and the penalties u/s 271D and 271E were cancelled.
|
