9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise orders passed by the Dy. CIT. 2. Applicability of Section 269SS and Section 269T concerning share application money. 3. Determination of whether share application money constitutes a loan or deposit. 4. Examination of reasonable cause under Section 273B for non-compliance with Sections 269SS and 269T. 5. Validity of penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E. Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of CIT's Jurisdiction under Section 263: The CIT, Nashik, called for records and formed an opinion that the orders passed by the Dy. CIT dropping the penalty proceedings were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT argued that the Dy. CIT failed to conduct necessary enquiries before dropping the penalties. The CIT issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, who contended that the CIT had no jurisdiction to revise orders passed by the Dy. CIT under Sections 271D and 271E. However, the CIT held that he had the power to revise such orders under Section 263, as the Dy. CIT had not made any enquiry and the assessee had not produced any evidence to establish reasonable cause for non-compliance with Sections 269SS and 269T. 2. Applicability of Section 269SS and Section 269T: The assessee argued that the amounts received were towards share application money and not loans or deposits, thus not attracting the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. The Dy. CIT accepted this contention, citing the Tribunal's decision in the case of Jagvijay Auto Finance (P) Ltd. The CIT, however, disagreed, stating that the amounts received in excess of the authorized share capital would automatically cease to be share application money and would assume the character of deposits. The CIT also noted that no shares were actually allotted and the real character of the amounts appeared to be other than share application money. 3. Determination of Whether Share Application Money Constitutes a Loan or Deposit: The CIT argued that the amounts received in excess of the authorized share capital should be considered as deposits, thus invoking Sections 269SS and 269T. The assessee contended that the amounts were received towards share capital and were reflected as such in the balance sheet. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Jagvijay Auto Finance (P) Ltd., where it was held that share application money does not constitute a loan or deposit. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 269SS are not applicable for accepting share application money, thus supporting the Dy. CIT's decision to drop the penalties. 4. Examination of Reasonable Cause under Section 273B: The CIT argued that the Dy. CIT failed to ask for proof regarding reasonable cause for not complying with Sections 269SS and 269T. The assessee contended that the transactions were genuine and made under a bona fide belief based on expert opinion that Sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable. The Tribunal held that since the Dy. CIT found that the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable, there was no need to consider reasonable cause under Section 273B. Thus, the CIT's observation was without basis. 5. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E: The CIT set aside the penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E, directing the Dy. CIT to make further enquiries. The Tribunal, however, found that the Dy. CIT had made necessary enquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, where it was held that penalty is not leviable if the assessee acted under a bona fide belief. The Tribunal concluded that the orders dropping the penalty proceedings were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the orders of the CIT, holding that the Dy. CIT's decision to drop the penalty proceedings was based on proper enquiries and supported by legal precedents. The appeals were allowed, and the orders dropping the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.
|
