9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Penalty u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS. 2. Interpretation of the term "any other person" in section 269SS. 3. Adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Summary: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000 on the respondent-assessee for accepting a loan in cash from Kulwant Rai & Sons, HUF, in violation of section 269SS. The first appellate authority quashed the penalty, leading to the revenue's appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of the term "any other person" in section 269SS The revenue argued that the term 'person' u/s 269SS should be interpreted in the context of section 2(31), which includes an individual, HUF, company, firm, etc. They contended that a partner as an individual has a distinct 'personage' from that of an HUF or firm. The assessee argued that the deposit was made by the karta of the HUF, who is also a partner in the firm, thus not violating section 269SS. Issue 3: Adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case The first appellate authority quashed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case due to procedural irregularities. The revenue contended that such irregularities are curable and do not merit quashing the penalty order. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO, which allows proceedings to continue from the point where the irregularity occurred. Comprehensive Details: 1. Penalty Imposition: The Tribunal noted that the penalty u/s 271D is for contravention of section 269SS, which mandates that loans or deposits above Rs. 20,000 must be accepted through an account payee cheque or bank draft. The assessee accepted Rs. 60,000 in cash, leading to the penalty. 2. Interpretation of "any other person": The Tribunal examined whether a partner is considered "any other person" vis-a-vis the firm. It concluded that despite the partner representing his smaller HUF, the loan was from the bigger HUF, making it a transaction between the firm and "any other person" under section 269SS. Thus, the assessee violated section 269SS. 3. Adequate Opportunity: The Tribunal disagreed with the first appellate authority's reasoning that the penalty should be quashed due to procedural irregularities. It held that such irregularities are curable and do not annul the penalty order. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO, which allows the proceedings to continue from the point of irregularity. Final Decision: The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's order quashing the penalty, considering the bona fide belief of the assessee and the technical nature of the breach. It emphasized that penalty provisions are penal in character and should not be imposed unless the default is deliberate or contumacious. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
|
