9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 527 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271E r.w.s. 269T - transaction routed through banking channels. which otherwise gets reported - reasonable cause u/s 273B or not? - HELD THAT - Seeing the entire conspectus of matter, we are of the considered view that issue of repayment of loan in cash to NBFC is not free from doubt specially in the light of Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) dated 9th March 2017 RBI/2016-17/245 DNBR (PD),CC.No. 086/ 03.10.001/2016-17 and citations referred. In fact, Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) dated 9th March 2017 gives another plausible view hence, we find reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Act in peculiar facts of the case. We also find that transaction in question is genuine. Therefore, we delete the levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 271E read with section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for repayment of loan in cash to a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC). Analysis: 1. Grounds of Appeal: The appellant challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the levy of penalty under section 271E read with section 269T of the Act. The appellant argued that the penalty provisions should not apply to transactions routed through banking channels, especially when reported. The appellant also contended that NBFCs should be treated at par with banking companies, and the interpretation of the penal provisions should align with the legislative intent. 2. Facts of the Case: The appellant, engaged in real estate business, repaid a vehicle loan obtained from a NBFC in cash, which exceeded the threshold specified in section 269T of the Act. The Additional Commissioner held the appellant in violation of the Act, leading to a penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, emphasizing the clear language of the statute. 3. Arguments of the Assessee: The appellant's counsel argued that the legislative intent behind sections 269SS and 269T was to curb black money generation through cash loans, which was not the case here. The appellant cited judicial precedents treating NBFCs at par with banks for income tax purposes. The appellant further highlighted that the loan repayment was duly reported by the NBFC recipient, indicating compliance with banking regulations. 4. Judicial Precedents and RBI Notification: The appellant submitted various judicial precedents supporting a purposive interpretation of the law in favor of the taxpayer. Additionally, a Reserve Bank of India notification was presented, indicating that NBFCs should adhere to the Income Tax Act's thresholds for cash transactions. The Tribunal considered these factors and found a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Act in the peculiar circumstances of the case. 5. Decision: After hearing both parties and examining the relevant provisions, case laws, and the RBI notification, the Tribunal concluded that the repayment of the loan in cash to the NBFC was not free from doubt. Citing the RBI notification and the plausible interpretations presented, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause under section 273B and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271E of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering legislative intent, judicial precedents, and regulatory notifications in interpreting tax provisions. The case emphasized the need for a nuanced approach when applying penalty provisions, especially in scenarios involving NBFCs and cash transactions.
|
