9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. 2. Consideration of reasonable cause for violation of Section 269SS. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cancellation of Penalty Levied under Section 271D for Violation of Section 269SS: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which canceled the penalty of Rs. 1,20,700 imposed under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. The assessee-company had accepted loans/deposits in cash of Rs. 20,000 or more from several individuals. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D, asserting that the assessee had violated Section 269SS by accepting these loans/deposits otherwise than by an account payee cheque or draft. The AO imposed the penalty, concluding that the assessee had failed to adopt necessary precautions as required under the law. 2. Consideration of Reasonable Cause for Violation of Section 269SS: The assessee argued that the loans were taken during the construction of a hospital and were urgently needed to make payments to laborers and suppliers because the bank was not releasing the term loan installments. The assessee submitted evidence of correspondence with the bank to support their claim of financial hardship and unavoidable circumstances. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, concluding that the acceptance of deposits in cash was not with an intention to purposely violate Section 269SS and that the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Consequently, the CIT(A) canceled the penalty. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal examined the validity of Section 269SS, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Asstt. Director of Inspection (Inv.) vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, emphasizing that the provision aimed to curb false explanations for unaccounted money. The Tribunal noted that Section 273B provides relief from penalties if a reasonable cause is established. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed accepted cash loans/deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000 in contravention of Section 269SS. While the assessee claimed urgent need for funds, the Tribunal observed that no substantial evidence was provided to demonstrate the immediate necessity or how the funds were utilized. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee failed to furnish specific details about the urgency and the exact dates of the loans. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and maintaining the majesty of law. It concluded that the assessee did not establish a reasonable cause for the violation and that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's penalty imposition. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,20,700 imposed under Section 271D, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's violation of Section 269SS. The appeal of the Revenue was accepted, and the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.
|
