9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt of deposit is after 30th June, 1984 and is not in the manner provided under the aforesaid provision. The contention that the said entries are not in the nature of the loan or deposit on the face of it are not acceptable for the reason that once any amount has been received by the respondent-assessee and the same is shown to have been received in its books of accounts, it partakes the nature of the deposit. Accordingly, the panel provision of Section 271-D gets attracted, leaving no scope for the respondent-assessee to escape from the liability of the penalty. The breach of Section 269-SS of the Act is apparent making the respondent-assessee liable for penalty under Section 271-D of the Act. - Decided against assessee. - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the respondent-assessee had received loans or deposits to the extent of ₹ 46 lakh through non-banking channel in contravention of Section 269-SS of the Act. Accordingly, he levied penalty of the equal amount under Section 271-D of the Act. This penalty amount has been deleted by the CIT (Appeals). The ITAT maintained the order of the CIT (Appeals) holding that the provisions of Section 269-SS of the Act is to unearth unaccounted money and is not applicable if the transactions are transparent and inter se the sister concerns. It is aggrieved by the deletion of the above penalty imposed under Section 271-D of the Act that the Revenue has preferred this appeal. Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue, has argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more: Provided....................... Provided further...................... The aforesaid provision prohibits receipt of any amount of ₹ 20,000/- or above otherwise than by way of account payee cheque /account payee draft or through use of electronic clearing system through a bank account of any loan or deposit after 30th June, 1984. In other words, after 30th June, 1984 all persons are supposed to receive loan or deposit of ₹ 20,000/- or more only through the banking channel as stipulated above and in no other manner subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-SS of the Act. The breach would occur only if ₹ 20,000/- or more of loan or deposit is received after 30th June, 1984 by the respondent-assessee through non-banking channel. The order of the Assessing Officer records that it is a fact that the assessee had accepted deposits, otherwise than by account payee cheque /draft, though the same may be transactions with the sister concerns. The assessee could not have received the deposits under consideration otherwise than by way of account payee cheque /draft etc. The aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer reads as under:- It is a fact that the assessee has accepted deposits, which are otherwise than by account payee cheque /draft. The CIT (Appeals) in its order does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S /269-T of the Act had levied penalties under Section 271-D and 271-E of the Act, which were knocked down by the CIT (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal. On the basis of the report obtained from the Assessing Officer that the transaction, in question, involved no cash, the Court held that the transaction was not a cash transaction and merely on the basis of book entries, no inference of violation of Section 269-SS /269-T of the Act can be drawn and thus, the appeal of the Department was dismissed. The aforesaid decision is of no avail to the respondent-assessee inasmuch as the Court therein has only considered that the transaction is not of cash on the basis of the report of the Assessing Officer, whereas in the present case, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove that the entries of receipt of ₹ 46 lakh appearing in the account books of the respondent-assessee, involved no money or was through the medium of bank. Moreover, in the said case, the Tribunal had recorded that the transaction was by way of an account payee cheque and there was no payment in cash. Since the language of the provision is crystal clear, the object or the purpose of the enactment of said provision has no say in the matter. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the breach of Section 269-SS of the Act is apparent making the respondent-assessee liable for penalty under Section 271-D of the Act. The respondent-assessee had not made out a case to prove that it had a reasonable cause which had occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
