9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Deletion of penalties under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed six appeals challenging the deletion of penalties under section 271E by the CIT(A). The assessee, an Advocate involved in cases of farmers' compensation for land acquisition, had loans/deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000 repaid through non-account payee instruments. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271E based on this contravention. 2. The CIT(A) noted the assessee's consistent claim that the amounts were loans, not deposits, and relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in a similar case to delete the penalties. The Revenue argued that borrowing occurs in both loans and deposits, thus section 271E should apply. The assessee's counsel emphasized the distinction between loans and deposits, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative distinction between loans and deposits under sections 269SS and 269T, highlighting the difference in repayment obligations and the creditor-debtor relationship. Referring to legal commentaries, the Tribunal emphasized the uniqueness of loans and deposits. The Delhi High Court's interpretation favored the assessee, considering the distinction between loans and deposits. 4. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that borrowing in loans and deposits negates the distinction. The Tribunal observed the absence of specific charges against the assessee regarding loans or deposits in the penalty order. Citing precedent, the Tribunal concluded that penalties under section 271E were unjustified as the assessee repaid loans, not deposits. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the distinction between loans and deposits. As the assessee repaid loans and not deposits, the Tribunal found no basis for invoking section 271E for contravention of section 269T. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A).
|
