9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271D for accepting cash deposits in contravention of section 269SS. Analysis: 1. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee accepted cash deposits in contravention of section 269SS, leading to a penalty under section 271D. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Jt. CIT) initiated penalty proceedings after the assessee's explanation was deemed insufficient. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating the absence of a reasonable cause. The assessee argued urgent need for funds due to ongoing construction and ignorance of section 269SS. The genuineness of transactions and depositors' capacity were acknowledged by the Department during assessment. 2. The Departmental Representative contended that the assessee's financial stability and awareness of legal provisions should have prevented the violation. The assessee's ignorance of law was challenged, emphasizing the clear definition of default under section 269SS. The Department argued that the penalty was justified due to the deliberate violation by the assessee, dismissing the claim of ignorance as an excuse. The assessee reiterated its plea of ignorance during the first year of business operations. 3. The Tribunal examined the genuineness of transactions and the legislative intent behind sections 269SS and 269T to prevent dubious entries. It noted the assessee's explanation of urgent fund requirements and ignorance of legal provisions during the initial business year. Acknowledging the limit compliance and genuine transactions, the Tribunal found the violation stemmed from a bona fide belief. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the violation was technical and venial, warranting no penalty under section 271D. 4. Relying on the Bank of Rajasthan case, the Tribunal emphasized that penalties for technical breaches arising from a bona fide belief are not valid. The mistaken belief regarding section 269SS requirements was considered reasonable cause. Considering the legal principles and factual circumstances, the Tribunal canceled the penalty, recognizing the violation as a technical error due to a genuine belief and genuine transactions. 5. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, highlighting the reasonable cause for the violation and the absence of malafide intent. The decision was based on the factual context, legal interpretations, and precedents cited by the assessee's counsel, ultimately annulling the penalty imposed under section 271D. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the deliberations on the violation, reasonable cause, legislative intent, and judicial precedents that led to the cancellation of the penalty imposed on the assessee.
|
