2021 (12) TMI 566 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 269T read with 271E - Tribunal deleted the penalty levy - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have referred to a few reasons as cogent reasons warranting levy of penalty on the assessee - Tribunal, in our considered view, has recorded a finding in favour of the assessee which is not impugnable. In normal course, the findings recorded by the Tribunal would have been examined by this Court to the extent permissible in law and answered the questions. The additional documents now brought on record, it is possible, may invite fresh examination of bona fide belief or reasonable cause relied on by the assessee. We refrain from undertaking the responsibility of examining the case of assessee that the assessee had reasonable cause for not following the requirement of law. But we are of the view that the matter, if remitted to the Tribunal, the parties would have reasonable opportunity and thereupon the claim/explanation of the assessee considered by the Tribunal. Substantial questions accordingly are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order of Tribunal is set aside. Matter remitted to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

Issues involved:
Levy of penalty under Section 269T read with 271E for non-compliance with loan transaction requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2008-09.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interference with Assessing Officer's Order:
The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's interference with the Assessing Officer's order. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's actions in light of previous legal decisions.

2. Violation of Section 269T and Penalty under Section 273B:
The Tribunal's justification for holding no violation of Section 269T and accepting the assessee's 'bona fide belief' as reasonable cause for deleting the penalty under Section 273B was contested. The burden of proof regarding compliance with the law was a key issue.

3. Application of Penalty Provisions and Unaccounted Money:
The Tribunal's decision on the applicability of penalty provisions in the absence of unaccounted money was disputed. Reference to a previous decision by the Allahabad High Court was made to support the argument against the imposition of penalties.

4. Levy of Penalty under Section 269T and 271E:
The main issue revolved around the penalty imposed under Section 271E for non-compliance with loan transaction requirements. The Revenue sought to bring additional documents on record to support the penalty imposition.

5. Reasoning for Penalty Imposition:
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in trading, which received and repaid a significant sum to an individual, leading to penalty imposition under Section 271E. The Commissioner's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), prompting the appeal to the Tribunal.

6. Arguments and Counterarguments:
Senior Advocate Menon argued against the Tribunal's leniency towards the assessee, claiming a misinterpretation of 'bona fide belief.' On the other hand, Advocate Sohan contended that new documents introduced by the Revenue should not be considered without the assessee's opportunity to respond.

7. Judicial Decision and Remand to Tribunal:
The High Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh examination, allowing both parties an opportunity to present their case within a specified timeline.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the final judicial decision concerning the levy of penalties under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the specified assessment year.

← Previous Next →