2015 (2) TMI 10 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans - Held that - Admittedly the assessee had discharged its liability towards bank by entering into one time settlement and, therefore, the bona fide of the assessee in accepting cash loans from directors/ shareholders and employees could not be doubted. The entire exercise was revenue neutral and not to evade any tax. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and cancel the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained unsecured loans taken in cash.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2002-03. The penalty was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - X, New Delhi.

2. The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing bricks and SW pipes, had filed its return of income declaring a loss. The assessment resulted in an addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans. However, the Tribunal later deleted all additions except for a small interest income amount.

3. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D on the grounds of violating provisions of section 269SS related to unsecured loans taken in cash from various individuals. The assessee claimed urgency in taking cash loans to meet a deadline for a one-time settlement with a bank.

4. The assessee raised a contention regarding the limitation period for the penalty under section 271D, which was rejected as the penalty proceedings were initiated within the statutory time frame.

5. On the merits, the assessee argued that the loans were genuine and taken under exigent circumstances to settle a liability with the bank. The genuineness of the loans was supported by documentary evidence and confirmations from creditors.

6. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and confirmations, found that the assessee had established the identity of creditors and the genuineness of transactions leading to the receipt of loans. The Tribunal concluded that the loans were legitimate and the penalty was not justified as the transactions were not intended to evade tax.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalty levied under section 271D, noting that the cash loans were taken in good faith to settle a liability and were not for tax evasion purposes. The penalty was canceled, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.