2003 (12) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of penalty cancellation under Section 271D.
2. Competence and initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 269SS and 271D.
3. Limitation period for imposing penalty under Section 275(1)(c).
4. Existence of reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Penalty Cancellation under Section 271D:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty of Rs. 12,55,000 levied by the Addl. CIT under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS. The assessee had taken loans exceeding Rs. 20,000 in cash, which contravened Section 269SS, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D by the AO. The Addl. CIT rejected the assessee's defense of ignorance of the law and lack of reasonable cause, imposing the penalty.

2. Competence and Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Sections 269SS and 271D:
The AO referred the case to the Addl. CIT, who is competent to impose penalties under Section 271D, issuing a show-cause notice on 2nd May 2000. The CIT(A) held that the penalty order was barred by time, asserting that the period of limitation started from the AO's initiation on 7th March 2000. The CIT(A) reasoned that the AO's statement in the assessment order constituted initiation of penalty proceedings, and the Addl. CIT's subsequent actions did not extend the limitation period.

3. Limitation Period for Imposing Penalty under Section 275(1)(c):
The CIT(A) concluded that the penalty order passed on 16th Nov 2000 was beyond the six-month limitation period from the initiation date of 7th March 2000, making it barred by time. However, the Tribunal, referencing the Youth Development Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. case, held that the AO's statement in the assessment order did not constitute valid initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal determined that the valid initiation occurred when the Addl. CIT issued the show-cause notice on 2nd May 2000, making the penalty order within the permissible period.

4. Existence of Reasonable Cause for Accepting Loans in Cash:
The CIT(A) did not address the assessee's plea of reasonable cause due to the preliminary finding on the limitation issue. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on the merits of the reasonable cause defense. The assessee argued that the loans were taken in cash due to a lack of awareness of Section 269SS and for specific purposes, invoking Section 273B, which provides for waiver of penalties if reasonable cause is demonstrated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the penalty proceedings were validly initiated on 2nd May 2000, and the penalty order was within the limitation period. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the reasonable cause defense. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.