Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

NJP Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.,SF 202, 2nd Floor,V3S Mall, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi.
September, 21st 2012
                                      1                      ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                               Asstt.Year: 2007-08

             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  DELHI BENCH `E' NEW DELHI

      BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                         AND
      SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                             ITA No. 4062/Del/2011
                           Assessment Year: 2007-08

NJP Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., vs         Income Tax Officer,
SF 202, 2nd Floor,                    Ward 13(1),
V3S Mall, Laxmi Nagar                  C.R. Building,
District Centre, New Delhi.            New Delhi.
(PAN: AACCN4544K)
 (Appellant)                                  (Respondent)

                                Appellant by: None
                               Respondent by: Shri R.S. Negi, Sr.DR





                                 ORDER

PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi dated 28.04.2011 for AY 2007-08 confirming the

levy of penalty by the AO u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act(hereinafter

referred to as the Act).

2.    The grounds of appeal read as under:-

             "1. The ld. ACIT erred in confirming order of the ld.
             ITO imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- under section
             271E of the Income Tax Act and thereby dismissing the
             appeal of the appellant.
                                          2                  ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                               Asstt.Year: 2007-08

         2. That the penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed under sec.
            271E of the Act is wholly illegal, unjustified and bad in
            the eyes of law and liable to be deleted."


3.    Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that

the assessee filed a return declaring loss of Rs.3,95,706/- and his assessment

was finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.3,84,698. During the

assessment, the AO observed that the assessee company has made a

repayment of loan of Rs.2 lakh in cash to one of the directors of assessee

company Shri Varun Agarwal, in contravention of the provisions of Section

269T of the Act. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s

271E of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the AO

to furnish explanation regarding cash payment of Rs.2 lakh and the assessee

furnished its reply and submitted that:

             "There is no loan given by the Company to Varun Sarup
             Agarwal. During the year repayment of unsecured loan
             to Sh. Varun Agarwal for RS.2 lacs in cash. There is
             Current A/c in the name of Shri Varun Agarwal who from
             time to time made payment for and behalf of the assessee
             company as the assessee did not have its Bank Alc which
             was opened on February 2007. Payment of RS.2 lacs was
             part reimbursement of expenses incurred by Shri Varun
             Agarwal for and on behalf of the Company. It was
             submitted that the same cannot be treated as loan with
             the meaning of Section 269SS and 269T. The assessing
             Officer erred in treating reimbursement of Expenses
             incurred by the Director of the company for and on
             behalf of the Company paid in cash as repayment of loan
                                    3                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                            Asstt.Year: 2007-08

         in contravention of the provision of Section 269T of the
         Income Tax Act 1961."





4.   After consideration of submissions and explanation offered by the

assessee, the AO noted that the assessee company was having substantial

funds in the form of sales of approximately Rs. 10 lakh right from

October 2006 to January 2007 and the same could be deposited in its

bank account, then repayment/reimbursement could be made by cheque

of Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal. The AO further noted that any amount

spent by any director on behalf of the assessee company is an unsecured

loan in the hands of assessee company and its repayment in cash is a

clear violation of the provisions of Section 269T of the Act. The AO

held that merely because a transaction is genuine (as contended by the

assessee), it cannot be taken out of the ambit of Section 271E. The AO

relying on the judgment of ITAT, Visak in the case of ACIT vs

Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd. (ITAT,Visak-TM) 115 ITD 115 held

that the assessee company violated Section 269T of the Act and imposed

a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on the assessee u/s 271E of the Act.

5.    The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which

was dismissed through impugned order. The operative part of impugned

order is being reproduced below:-
                         4                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                 Asstt.Year: 2007-08



"In view of above facts and judicial pronouncements, the
AR of the appellant company prayed that no penalty u/s
271E is leviable and the penalty of Rs. 2 lacs levied u/s
271E of the Act deserves to be deleted.

2.2 I have considered the facts of the case and the
submissions of the AR of the appellant. It is an admitted
fact that Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the appellant to its
director in cash in February,2007 represented return of
the amount paid by the director on behalf of the
appellant company towards its expenses. Clearly, any
amount paid by one person on behalf of another person
would be a loan from the former to the latter because a
loan or deposit has been defined in explanation to section
269T to mean any loan or deposit of money which is
repayable after notice or repayable after a period and
the expenses incurred by the director on behalf of the
appellant company were repayable/had to be reimbursed
by the appellant. When the appellant company returned
this amount to its director, the return would constitute
return of loan given by the director to the appellant
company. The expenses incurred by the director on
behalf of the appellant cannot be termed as transactions
in the current account of the appellant with the director,
as contended. It is also observed that the appellant
company was incorporated in September,2006 and it
took five months to open its bank account in
February,2007. Not only this, it has been submitted that
the bank account was opened on February,2007 with
HDFC Bank while cash was deposited in the bank
account of Shri Yarun Agarwal, Director on 9th
February,2007 to enable cheque towards rent payable by
the appellant company to be cleared on l0th
February,2007. It is not clear as to why, once the
account of the company was opened on 7th
Feburary,2007, cash was not deposited in this account
and cheque for rent issued from the account of the
company, instead of giving cash to the director who then
made payment on behalf of the appellant company.
                         5                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                 Asstt.Year: 2007-08

Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the payment
of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- by the appellant company to its
director was necessitated by any urgent requirement. The
case laws relied upon by the AR of the appellant are not
applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. For
instance in the cases of Canara Housing Development
Company vs. Addl. CIT, CIT vs. Idhayam Publications
Ltd., CIT vs. Shri Ambica Flour Mills Corporation & CIT
vs. Sriniwas Joshi (supra), the issue was whether current
account transactions with sister concerns/urgent
payments to sister concerns would fall within the
meaning of loans or advances for the purpose of section
269SS/269T. As already discussed above, in the case of
the appellant the expenses incurred by the director on
behalf of the appellant company were loan by the
director to the appellant and not current account
transactions. Neither was there any urgency to return the
amount in cash to the director. In the case of Narayan
Ram Chhaba vs. ITO (supra), the assessee was an
agriculturist who took cash loans from his wife and HUF
and in the case of CIT vs Kasi Corporation &
Anr.(supra), the assessee was in the business of
accepting deposits from the public and in some of the
cases repaid them in cash on account of closure of
banking hours, payments to lady members who did not
have bank accounts, etc. The appellant is not an
agriculturist and has not made the repayment of loan in
cash for any such urgent reasons and so the facts of the
appellant's case are totally different. As per the other
judicial pronouncements relied upon the appellant,
penalty u/s 2710/271 E is not attracted when there is
reasonable cause for giving or returning loans in cash or
the appellant holds a bona-fide belief that such payments
can be made. In the case of the appellant it cannot be
said that there was any reasonable cause for return of
the loan in cash, since as discussed earlier, the bank
account of the appellant had already opened by the time
the return of loan was made. The Addl. CIT has
discussed in the penalty order that merely because a
transaction is genuine (as contended by an assessee) it
                                      6                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                              Asstt.Year: 2007-08

            cannot be taken out of the ambit of Section 271 E as held
            in ACIT vs. Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd. (IT AT,
            Visak - JM) 115 ITD 115. I am, therefore, of the view that
            there was no reasonable cause for the appellant to return
            the loan of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- taken by it from its director
            in cash and accordingly the penalty ofRs.2,OO,OOO/-
            levied by the Addl. CIT u/s 271E is upheld. Grounds Nos.
            1 to 3 of the appeal are dismissed."

Hence, this second appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal.

6.    We have heard rival submissions of both the parties in the light of

material on record before us and carefully considered the same.

7.    The assessee's representative submitted that the company did not have

a bank account till 7.2.2007 and on 1.2.2007 the director of the company

Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal issued cheque of Rs.1,50,000 for payment of rent

to M/s Gahoi Buildwell on behalf of assessee company from his bank

account with ICICI Bank but there was not sufficient balance in the account,

therefore, the appellant company withdrew cash of Rs.2 lakh out of cash in

hand and deposited in the bank account of Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal on

9.2.2007. After that, the cheque of Rs.1,50,000 dated 1.2.2007 issued for

payment of rent to M/s Gahoi Buildwell Ltd. was cleared on 1.2.2007 and

then the remaining amount of Rs.50,000 was transferred to company's bank

account on 10.2.2007. He further submitted that the payment of rent was

made by Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal (director of the assessee company) by

issuing a cheque from his bank account and if cash amount could not be
                                      7                      ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                               Asstt.Year: 2007-08

deposited, the cheque could be dishonored.              Therefore, in these

circumstances, cash payment of Rs. 2 lakh was made to Shri Varun Sarup

Agarwal enabling him to ensure clearance of cheque pertaining to payment

of rent to the landlord M/s M/s Gahoi Buildwell Ltd.

8.    The asessee's representative relying on the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

reported as (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) submitted that the penalty will not be

imposed merely because it is lawful to do so because an order of imposing

penalty for failure to carry out statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-

criminal proceeding and penalty should not be imposed unless the party

under obligation acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of

conduct or acted dishonestly, or acted in conscious disregard of its

obligation. Relying on the submissions made before the CIT(A), the AR

contended that the authorities below decided the issue in a mechanical

manner without considering the fact that the cash payment was made by the

assessee company to its director who used his personal resources to save the

goodwill of the assessee company. The authorities below also ignored the

fact that the assessee company and its director Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal

acted in good conscience, honestly and without any intention to violate the

statutory provisions of the Act.
                                       8                      ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                                Asstt.Year: 2007-08

9.     The ld. DR supported the impugned order, inter alia the order of the

AO passed u/s 271E of the Act and submitted that the assessee company

made     payment     of    Rs.2    lakh    on    9th   February,     2007       as

repayment/reimbursement of rent and other expenses incurred by the

director Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal on behalf of the assessee company. As

the assessee company opened its bank account on 7.2.2007, there is no

reasonable cause to make cash payment of Rs. 2 lakh to its director on

9.2.2007. Therefore, the assessee company clearly violated the provisions of

Section 269 of the Act. Accordingly, penalty levied u/s 271E of the Act was

proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.      On perusal of paper book and citations relied by the authorities

below, we observe that in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of

Orissa reported as 83 ITR 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court provided a

guideline to the courts and quasi-judicial authorities which is being

reproduced as under:-

                   "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out
             a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal
             proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed
             unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in
             defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or
             dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its
             obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely
             because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be
             imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a
             matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised
                                   9                    ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                          Asstt.Year: 2007-08

         judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant
         circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed,
         the authority competent to impose the penalty will be
         justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a
         technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or
         where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the
         offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by
         the statute."


11.   In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that Shri Varun Sarup

Agarwal is a director of assessee company who made payment of rent

through cheque from his bank account with ICICI Bank.           His bank

statement from 1.10.2006 to 1.3.2007 available on paper book page nos.

23 and 24 reveals that cash of Rs. 2 lakh was deposited on 9.2.2007 and a

cheque of Rs.1,50,000 was cleared to Gahoi Buildwell Ltd. on 10.2.2007

and remaining amount of Rs.50,000 was returned back to the assessee

company through cheque no. 217337 which was credited to the

assessee's account on 17.2.2007.

12.   In view of above, we observe that it was necessary to withdraw

cash from sales proceeds and to deposit it in the bank account of Shri

Varun Sarup Agarwal as the transfer of money by cheque could take time

and if cheque was issued to Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal in this regard,

definitely some time may be consumed for banking transaction for

routing money from the assessee's bank account to Shri Varun Sarup
                                     10                   ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                            Asstt.Year: 2007-08

Agarwal's bank account and this would have resulted in dishonoring of

cheque issued by Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal on behalf of the assessee

company for payment of rent.

13.   We have observed that the Assessing Officer relied on the judgment

of ITAT, Visac, Third Member Bench in the case of Vinman Finance

(supra) wherein it was held that:-

         "10. However, cancellation of penalty on technical
         grounds is not justified. In my considered opinion,
         penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act need
         not be initiated during the course of assessment
         proceedings as could be seen from the plain language of
         the provisions of section 275(1)( c) of the Act. Similar
         view taken in the case of Dr. D. Siva Sankara Rao
         (supra).     Similarly, by taking analogy from the
         observations of the Apex Court in the case of Similarly,
         by taking analogy from the observations of the apex
         Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO
         (1991) 97 CTR (SC) 251 : (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC), the
         provisions of ss. 269SS and 269T of the Act having been
         intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent
         the use of unaccounted monies or to reduce chances of
         use of black money for business transactions, even
         genuine transactions cannot be taken out of the sweep of
         the provisions of the Act if the payments are not routed
         through the specified channels unless and until
         exceptional circumstances are proved. While considering
         the provisions of s. 40A(3), the Court observed as under :

          "...The terms of s. 40A(3) are not absolute.
         Considerations of business expediency and other relevant
         factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide
         transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section.
         It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of
         the AO the circumstances under which the payment in the
                                  11                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                           Asstt.Year: 2007-08

         manner prescribed in s. 40A(3) was not practicable or
         would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee."
         (Emphasis, italicized in print, supplied)

         In the light of the principle laid down by the apex Court
         supra, merely because the transaction is genuine, it
         cannot be taken out of the sweep of s. 269T/271E of the
         Act."


14. In the case of Vinman Finance (supra), the facts were that the

assessee was a financial leasing company.           During the relevant

assessment year, it accepted certain deposits in cash and also repaid

certain amounts in cash in excess of Rs.20,000. The Assessing Officer

opined that out of total repayments, a part of amount could be said to

have been paid in cash due to exceptional circumstances with but regard

to the balance amount, the Assessing Officer viewed that the depositors

resided in urban areas where banking facilities were available and

therefore there was no reasonable cause for violation of the provisions of

Section 269T of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied

penalty u/s 271E of the Act.

15.   In this case, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)

observed that all the depositors were with village and agricultural

background, who lacked banking facility and, thus, assessee, could not

forcibly repay the amount by cheques Accordingly, the Commissioner of
                                  12                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                           Asstt.Year: 2007-08

Income Tax(A) taking the view that payments made by cash were

supported by reasonable cause, cancelled the penalty levied by the

Assessing Officer. On revenue's appeal before ITAT, Vizac in view of

difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant

Member, the matter was referred to the Third Member, who decided the

issued in favour of the assessee with the following observations:-

               "Under the circumstances, I agree with the
         conclusions of the learned Judicial Member that in view
         of the claim of ignorance of provisions of law coupled
         with the bona fide reasons for making payment in cash,
         no case was made out for levy of penalty since the
         explanation constitutes a reasonable cause within the
         meaning of s. 273B of the Act. In other words, the penalty
         imposed under s. 271E is not justified and the cross-
         objections filed by the assessee deserve to be allowed."


16.   The facts and circumstances of this case are not identical with the

present case as the appeal in hand is related to the cash transaction of a

company with its director.

17.   The assessee's representative relied on the judgment of ITAT

Bangalore Bench in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs

ACIT (2010) 127 TTJ (Bang) 446 wherein it was held as under:-

         "13. Much of the arguments advanced before were on
         the question whether transactions between sister
         concerns in cash are hit by s. 269T. The section does not
         expressly confer any exemption for transactions between
         connected parties or sister concerns. A perusal of the
                         13                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                  Asstt.Year: 2007-08

decided cases on this point shows that there is a cleavage
of judicial opinion. The assessee has relied on the order
of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of
Muthoot M. George Brothers (supra) in which it was
held that cash transactions between sister concerns are
not affected by the section. However, the Mumbai Bench
of the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Ginning &
Pressing Factory vs Jt.d Commissioner of Income
Tax(2001) 72 TTJ (Mumbai) 307: (2001) 77 ITD 478
(Mumbai) to which one of us was party (the Vice
President), has held that there is no exemption from s.
269T even if the parties are connected with each other or
they are sister concerns. In the case of Supreme
Investments vs Jt.CIT in ITA NO.76/Bang/2006 dt. 3rd
Aug. 2007, for the asstt.yr. 2001-02, the Bangalore
Bench did not record a definite conclusion that
transactions between sister concerns are not hit by s.
269T, though the penalty was cancelled on other
grounds. For the limited purpose of imposing penalty
under s. 271E, it is perhaps enough to see whether the
assessee could have bona fide belief that transactions
with sister concerns involving cash were not hit by s.
269T. Since there is a difference of opinion on this point
between two orders of the Tribunal, the assessee was
perhaps justified in believing that it is stated that the
assessee's bona fide belief constitutes reasonable cause
for the violation of s. 269T r/w s. 273B. Similarly, if the
assessee had bona fide belief that cash transactions in a
current account are not hit by s. 269T, which belief is
vindicated by the judgment of the Madras High Court,
cited supra, even that can be considered as reasonable
cause under s. 273B and on that ground also the penalty
is liable to be cancelled. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in H.S. Ananthasubbaraya
(supra) also supports the plea of the assessee. In this
connection, we may refer to the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in Chaubey Overseas Corpn. vs
Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 218 CTR (All) 494:
(2008) 303 ITR 9(All), in which it was held that even a
trade deposit was included within the purview of the
                        14                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                 Asstt.Year: 2007-08

definition of the deposit in s. 269T. This decision was
cited by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-DR. In the
present case, however, we have already referred to the
term in the MoU dt. 5th Oct. 2004 that the arrangement
entered into between the assessee and Assessing Officer
shall not be construed as resulting in any business
arrangement between them. Thus, the monies cannot be
said to represent any business or trade deposits so that
they can be included in the definition of "loans or
deposits" in the section. Thus, this judgment is of no
assistance to the Department on the facts of the present
case.

14. So far as AE is concerned, Satish Pai who is a
partner in the assessee firm is also a partner in AE. In
the assessee's reply dt. 23rd May 2008 to the ACIT, it was
explained that the amount of Rs. 12 lakh was drawn by
Satish Pai in cash for making investment in a property in
the name of AE and thus it was nothing but drawings by
a partner. The ledger account of AE in the assessee's
books is at p. 85 of the paper book. The assessee's claim
has not been specifically refuted in the orders of the
Departmental authorities. In fact, it appears to us that
the cash repayment relating to AE has not been
specifically considered at all in their orders. Since the
assessee's claim that it represents drawings by a partner.
The ledger account of AE in the assessee's books is at p.
85 of the paper book. The assessee's claim has not been
specifically refuted in the orders of the Departmental
authorities. In fact, it appears to us that the cash
repayment relating to AE has not been specifically
considered at all in their orders. Since the assessee's
claim that it represents drawings by a partner for making
investment in a property in the name of AE has not been
found incorrect, there is no justification for levy of any
penalty for violation of s. 269T."
                                     15                      ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                               Asstt.Year: 2007-08

In view of above, we hold that the director of assessee company Mr. Varun

Sarup Agarwal issued a cheque on 1.2.2007 on behalf of the assessee

company for payment of rent and assessee company opened its account after

issuance of this cheque. The amount of Rs. 2 lakh was deposited in the bank

account of Mr. Varun Sarup Agarwal with a bona fide intention to prevent

dishonoring of the cheque issued to the landlord of the assessee company

and the remaining amount was returned back to the assessee company's

bank account. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is doubtful

whether the amount received by director with an intention to deposit it to the

bank account with a bona fide belief that this would save the prestige of the

company can be characterized as a loan or a deposit within the meaning of

Section 269T of the Act. Although Section 269T of the Act does not

expressly confer any exemption from transaction between connected parties

or sister concern but a perusal of the decided cases on this point shows that

there is a cleavage of judicial opinion. For the limited purpose of imposing

penalty u/s 271E of the Act, it is perhaps enough to see whether the assessee

could have bona fide belief that the transaction with connected parties or

sister concerns involving cash of more than Rs.20,000 would not hit by

Section 269T of the Act. The assessee company was perhaps justified in

believing that it is entitled to rely on the position which was in its favour.
                                       16                     ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                                Asstt.Year: 2007-08

Thus, it may be stated that the assessee company gave Rs. 2 lakh to its

director with a bona fide belief that an urgency to ensure honoring of the

cheque issued to the landlord constitutes a reasonable cause u/s 273B of the

Act where no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure

referred to in the said provisions inter alia Section 269T of the Act.

18.   In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Idhayam

Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Madras), their lordships

dismissing the appeal of the revenue held that the transaction between the

assessee and the director was not a loan or deposit and it was only a current

account in nature and no interest was being charged for the transactions

made under the account, the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the

Tribunal which deleted the penalty.

19.   In view of above case, if we evaluate the impugned transaction in this

case, then from the ledger account of Shri Varun Sarup Agarwal with the

assessee company available at page 17 of the paper book, it reveals that

there was a current account between the assessee company and its director

and no interest was being charged for the transactions and the same could

not be termed either as a loan or a deposit with the assessee company.

20.   Accordingly, we finally hold that the penalty levied by the Assessing

Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was not
                                      17                        ITA No.4062/Del/2011
                                                                  Asstt.Year: 2007-08

based on justified and reasonable grounds.            The Assessing Officer

misinterpreted the ratio of the judgment of the ITAT, Visac in the case of

Vinman Finance (supra) and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case wherein the impugned cash payment was made to the director was

under bona fide belief that it was a transaction under a current account

between the company and its director which was bearing no interest on the

transactions. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 269T r/w Section 271E of the

Act cannot be sustained and impugned order in this regard deserves to be set

aside and we set aside the same.

21.   In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

      Order pronounced in the open court on 19.9.2012.


     Sd/-                                              Sd/-
(J.SUDHAKAR REDDY)                            (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 19th SEPTEMBER, 2012
`GS'

Copy forwarded to:-
  1. Appellant
  2. Respondent
  3. Commissioner of Income Tax(A)
  4. CIT. 5. DR
                                                              By Order

                                                              Asstt. Registrar
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Reengineering Software Re-engineering Software Reverse Engineering Software Reverse Development Software Change Modulation Software Conversion Software Re-creation Software Re-development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions