2023 (10) TMI 839 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271D - violation of the provisions of section 269SS - Cash loan received from director - assessee had received loans in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by Account payee Cheque/Bank Draft - HELD THAT - It is not a loan from public, but amount received from director to meet the business exigencies. We are of the considered view that transactions between appellant company and director are in the nature of current account transactions, which does not come under the purview of loan and deposit as per section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is erred in levying penalty u/s. 271D - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Levy of penalty u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS.
2. Business exigency and reasonable cause for accepting cash loans.
3. Classification of transactions between company and director.
4. Applicability of judicial precedents.

Summary:

1. Levy of Penalty u/s 271D for Violation of Section 269SS:
The assessee company received cash loans amounting to Rs. 2,02,10,000/- from its director, Shri. T. Mohan, for purchasing land. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice u/s 271D r.w.s. 274 and subsequently levied a penalty of Rs. 2,02,10,000/- for contravening section 269SS, which prohibits accepting loans in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The AO rejected the assessee's argument that the transactions were necessitated by business exigency and the absence of a bank account, deeming these reasons as figments of imagination.

2. Business Exigency and Reasonable Cause for Accepting Cash Loans:
The assessee argued that the cash loan was taken due to business exigency, as the company did not have a bank account at the time, and the sellers insisted on cash payments. The CIT(A) dismissed this explanation, stating that business compulsion alone is insufficient to avoid penal consequences for violating section 269SS. The Tribunal, however, found the explanation reasonable, considering the genuine and bonafide nature of the transactions and the business context.

3. Classification of Transactions Between Company and Director:
The Tribunal examined whether the transactions between the company and its director could be classified as loans or deposits under section 269SS. It concluded that the transactions were in the nature of current account transactions and not loans or deposits, thus falling outside the scope of section 269SS. The Tribunal also noted that the transactions were disclosed in the books of accounts of both the company and the director, further supporting their genuineness.

4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs M/s. Muthoot Financiers, which held that transactions between a firm and its partners do not attract penalties under section 269SS. Applying this principle, the Tribunal concluded that transactions between the company and its director should not be treated as violations of section 269SS. The Tribunal also distinguished the present case from other cases cited by the revenue, where penalties were upheld due to different factual contexts.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271D, concluding that the transactions between the company and its director were genuine, reasonable, and outside the purview of section 269SS. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.