9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had raised the following loans/deposits :-- Mrs. Shrimati Agarwal 31-12-1991 JR 5 7,000 1-4-1991 Op. bal. 1,93,751 31-3-1992 Bal. c/d 3,38,936 30-4-1991 B.R. 20 15,000 1-4-1991 JR-4 1,00,000 31-3-1992 JR-9, Intt. 37,185 3,45,936 3,45,936 Mrs. Sunita Agarwal R Bal. c/d 1,18,000 1-4-1991 Op. bal. 1,00,000 31-3-1992 Intt. 18,000 1,18,000 1,18,000 Miss Risha Agarwal 31-3-1992 Bal. c/d 1,44,461 1-4-1991 JR- 1,22,425 31-3-1992 Intt. 22,036 1,44,461 1,44,461 Miss Rina Agarwal 31-3-1992 Bal. c/d 70,800 1-4-1991 JR-4 60,000 31-3-1992 Intt. 10,800 70,800 70,800 Amar Family Trust 31-3-1992 Bal. c/d 1,18,000 1-4-1991 JR-4 1,00,000 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expression 'money' appearing in Explanation (iii ) to section 269SS does not mean cash only. It could be transfer of money by journal entries has been made in the instant case. He has further relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer. A reliance has also been made to the decision of ITAT, Agra Bench in Goyal Construction Co. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1733 and 2955 (Delhi) of 1995]. However, we find that the facts of the said case are distinguishable in as much as there was no bifurcation of accounts in the said case but was a case of deposit. Thus he has urged that the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act and has urged that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be quashed. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment and that splitting the credit balance appearing in one name into several names of the same family by making journal entries does not amount to taking or accepting loan or deposit of money on the date of making journal entries. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the provisions of section 269SS would clearly show that this section can be applied only where money passes from one person to another by way of 'loan or deposit'. This provision cannot be applied where the money does not pass from one person to another. Thus splitting the credit balance appearing in the account of M/s Shivraj & Co. in the name of the aforesaid members of the family does not amount to passing of money from one person to another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Jagvijay Auto Finance P. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1995] 128 Taxation 122 wherein it has been held that "money paid in cash initially for allotment of shares but later transferred to loan account held to be not a loan or deposit and no penalty under section 271D could be levied. Alternatively, he has submitted that even if it is taken as violation of section 269SS, said violation can be said to be venial and technical nature and there was a reasonable cause for making such transfer entries from one account to another. Therefore, no penalty is required to be made under section 271D of the Act. A reliance in this connection has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Shivraj & Co. to the account of the aforesaid 5 persons. Further, the transactions have not been treated as non-genuine or bogus by the Department. In the case of Sunflower Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed thus :-- "The bare reading of section 269SS clearly shows that the words 'take or accept' has been used with reference to the words 'loan or deposit' respectively. The reason is obvious. In the case of loan, it is the borrower who goes to the lender for obtaining the loan and in the case, of deposit, it is the depositor who goes to the person with whom he wants to deposit the money. This is the reason that the legislature has used the word 'take' with reference to the word 'loan' and used the word 'accept' wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
