2016 (11) TMI 951 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - Held that - The hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case cited as CIT v. I. P. India P. Ltd. 2011 (11) TMI 252 - DELHI HIGH COURT while examining the identical issue has held that share application money is not a deposit within the meaning of section 269SS nor it is a loan by any stretch of imagination and as such, penalty cannot be imposed under section 271D of the Act. So, finding no infirmity or illegality in the findings returned by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we hereby dismiss the present appeal filed by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against cancellation of penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act for receiving cash against share capital, share premium, and share application money.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an Income-tax Officer, filed an appeal seeking to set aside the order cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act for receiving cash against share capital. The Assessing Officer treated the cash receipt as a violation of section 269SS, initiating penalty proceedings.

2. During scrutiny, it was found that the assessee received cash against share capital, premium, and application money, leading to an addition of unexplained cash credit to the income. The Assessing Officer concluded that the explanation provided was not tenable, and the amount was a cover-up for circumventing section 269SS.

3. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty, which was cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. Despite notices, the assessee did not appear, and the appeal proceeded with the Departmental representative and available documents.

4. The Tribunal considered the assessment and penalty orders, noting the cash received against share capital and application money. The Commissioner deleted the addition, but the Tribunal set it aside, accepting part of the share application money as explained and the rest as unexplained.

5. Provisions of section 269SS were examined, clarifying that share application money does not fall under the definition of "loan or deposit," exempting it from the section's requirements. Citing a relevant High Court case, it was established that share application money is not a deposit or loan, thus penalty under section 271D was not applicable.

6. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on July 11, 2016.

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