2005 (12) TMI 238 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of section 269SS to the assessee acting as an agent.
3. Estimation of the amount involved in contravention of section 269SS.
4. Legal responsibility of the agent versus the principal under the Indian Contract Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Penalty Imposed Under Section 271D:
The primary issue in the revenue's appeal was the cancellation of a penalty amounting to Rs. 41,42,87,300 imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee had received certain cash deposits above Rs. 20,000, thereby contravening section 269SS. The AO had issued multiple show-cause notices and required the assessee to furnish details of cash deposits, which were not adequately provided. Consequently, the AO estimated the amount involved in the contravention and imposed the penalty.

2. Applicability of Section 269SS to the Assessee Acting as an Agent:
The assessee argued that it was merely an agent collecting deposits on behalf of its principals and not on its own account, thus section 269SS was not applicable. The AO rejected this contention, stating that section 269SS does not exclude agents from its purview and that the assessee, having received the deposits in cash, was liable for the penalty. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's argument, referencing sections 2 and 282 of the Indian Contract Act, and concluded that the agent cannot be held responsible for the acts done on behalf of the principal.

3. Estimation of the Amount Involved in Contravention of Section 269SS:
The AO estimated the amount involved in the contravention by taking assistance from the details of one branch for a subsequent assessment year and applying a ratio to the total deposits. The CIT(A) found this method unjustified, noting that the break-up of identified deposits was not provided to the assessee and that the AO's estimation method was flawed. The CIT(A) emphasized that penalty under section 271D requires specific quantification of the amount, which was not done in this case.

4. Legal Responsibility of the Agent Versus the Principal Under the Indian Contract Act:
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal examined the legal relationship between the agent and the principal under the Indian Contract Act. They concluded that the agent, acting in a fiduciary capacity, cannot be held liable for the principal's actions. This was supported by the Tribunal's earlier decision in a similar case, where it was held that the agent's acts are essentially the acts of the principal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty, agreeing that the agent (assessee) was not liable under section 271D as it was acting on behalf of the principals. The Tribunal also found the AO's method of estimating the contravention amount unjustified and noted that the penalty provisions require specific quantification of the amount involved. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.