2016 (6) TMI 1051 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271D - cash receipt in violation of conditions of section 269SS - whether the transaction of accepting ₹ 2 lacs from appellant s son was non-commercial and personal in nature? - Held that - The transaction was between a father and son, to meet the urgent requirement of depositing the margin money in the bank account for buying a vehicle for personal use and thus, it was neither a loan nor deposit nor had anything to do with evasion of tax. Default if any was of a technical or a venial breach of the provisions of law and therefore no penalty could be imposed under section 271D of the Act. See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd. 2008 (2) TMI 114 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ITAT order on penalty u/s. 271D - Non-commercial transaction - Genuine nature of transaction - Interpretation of Section 269SS - Applicability of penalty - Reasonable cause for transaction - Business exigency - Revenue loss consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the ITAT order imposing a penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting a sum from his son, arguing that the transaction was non-commercial and personal in nature, not falling under the purview of section 269SS. The appellant received the amount to deposit margin money for buying a vehicle for personal use, clarifying it was not a loan or deposit but a domestic transaction due to urgent necessity.

2. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, emphasizing the father-son relationship and the transaction's purpose, ruling it did not constitute a loan or deposit under section 269SS. The Tribunal, however, upheld the penalty. The appellant cited precedents Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balaji Traders to support his case, highlighting the absence of tax evasion or commercial motives in the transaction.

3. The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional violation or tax evasion, acknowledging the absence of tax planning and the genuine nature of the transaction. It noted that the breach, if any, was technical and venial, not warranting penalty under section 271D. The appellant's reasonable cause for the transaction, driven by business exigency and lack of revenue loss, was considered in line with legal principles.

4. In contrast, the respondent argued that the transaction breached Section 269SS, justifying the penalty imposed by the Tribunal. However, the High Court, after considering the explanations provided by the appellant and the legal precedents cited, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court applied the principles established in the Bombay Conductors case to uphold the appellant's position, emphasizing the absence of tax evasion and the genuine nature of the transaction.

5. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant's explanation for the transaction was satisfactory and aligned with legal precedents. The Court emphasized the absence of tax evasion, the genuine purpose of the transaction, and the reasonable cause provided by the appellant, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271D.