2015 (2) TMI 362 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271E - loan or deposit - cash payment versus book adjustments in violation of section 269T - Held that - Assessing Officer did not indicate the method of payment. It was simply mentioned that everything was done in cash. The very fact that from the same agencies, amounts were said to have been received and repaid, as reflected in the books, discloses that it was nothing but book adjustment. Further, he did not give any specific finding that the so-called receipts are in the form of loan or deposit or the repayment was made thereof. All the three orders passed by the Assessing Officer are silent about the payment made to Smt. Sarada Mohan. The Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal proceeded on the same lines. They did not bestow any attention as to whether one of the sister concerns can take deposit, or loan, from another, without reflecting the same in the books of account Making book adjustment of the funds, by a firm vis-a-vis its sister concern, can by no means be said to be the one taken in clear violation or contravention of the said provisions. It is only when an assessee has taken a decision to mobilise loans or deposits and in the process it has received amounts exceeding ₹ 20,000, otherwise than through cash that the contravention can be said to have been taken place. Similarly, section 269T can be said to have been violated if only the repayment to a depositor or a loanee exceeding a sum of ₹ 10,000 was made otherwise than through crossed cheque or demand draft. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not identify the loanee or depositor and has simply invoked the provisions in relation to an internal financial adjustment among the firms. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of penalty under section 271E(1) for the assessment year 1992-93.
2. Justification of penalty under section 271E(1) for the assessment year 1993-94.
3. Justification of penalty under section 271D(1) for the assessment year 1993-94.
4. Applicability of section 269T to payments made into the account of Yellaiah Gupta Transport.
5. Applicability of section 269T to the payment made to Smt. Sarada Mohan.
6. Reasonable cause under section 273B for the payments and withdrawals from Yellaiah Gupta Transport account.
7. Discretion in the quantum of penalty under sections 271D(1) and 271E(1).
8. Validity of the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and its impact on the High Court's decision in ITO v. Laxmi Enterprises.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Penalty under Section 271E(1) for the Assessment Year 1992-93:
The court examined whether the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 2,72,300 was justified. The appellant argued that the payments were book adjustments and not actual cash transactions. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not find any illegality in the internal adjustments among the firms during the original assessment under section 143(3). It was only during the penalty proceedings that these transactions were questioned.

2. Justification of Penalty under Section 271E(1) for the Assessment Year 1993-94:
Similarly, for the assessment year 1993-94, the penalty of Rs. 1,99,573 was contested. The court reiterated the appellant's argument that these were book adjustments and not cash payments. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific findings to substantiate the claim that these were cash transactions.

3. Justification of Penalty under Section 271D(1) for the Assessment Year 1993-94:
For the penalty of Rs. 1,23,000 under section 271D(1), the appellant maintained that the transactions were internal adjustments. The court observed that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the amounts were received in cash as loans or deposits.

4. Applicability of Section 269T to Payments Made into the Account of Yellaiah Gupta Transport:
The court examined whether the payments amounting to Rs. 2,48,300 and Rs. 1,99,573 could be considered repayments of deposits under section 269T. The court found that the transactions were internal adjustments and not repayments of deposits, thus section 269T was not applicable.

5. Applicability of Section 269T to the Payment Made to Smt. Sarada Mohan:
The payment of Rs. 24,000 to Smt. Sarada Mohan was scrutinized. The appellant argued that the payment was made due to the bereavement of her husband, who was the legal advisor. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific findings regarding this payment and treated it as a violation without proper justification.

6. Reasonable Cause under Section 273B for the Payments and Withdrawals from Yellaiah Gupta Transport Account:
The court highlighted section 273B, which states that no penalty shall be imposed if there is a reasonable cause for the failure. The court found that the internal financial adjustments among the firms constituted a reasonable cause and thus, penalties under sections 271D and 271E should not be imposed.

7. Discretion in the Quantum of Penalty under Sections 271D(1) and 271E(1):
The court did not find it necessary to delve into the discretion in the quantum of penalty as it had already determined that the penalties were not justified due to reasonable cause under section 273B.

8. Validity of the Tribunal's Conclusion Regarding the Supreme Court's Decision:
The court did not specifically address the Tribunal's conclusion about the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala as it found the penalties themselves to be unjustified.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the acts and omissions attributed to the appellant did not constitute violations of sections 269SS and 269T. Even if such contraventions were noticed, they were condoned under section 273B. Therefore, the penalties imposed under sections 271D and 271E were declared untenable, and the appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →