Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.290/CTK/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015
M/s. Shree Sai Enterprises, 137, Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, C, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ABWFS 6658 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri N.R.Biswal Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Date of Hearing : 24 /07/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23/08/ 2019
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 29.5.2018
for the assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“"1. For that, the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unjustified towards conforming the penalty of Rs. 9,74,499/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 . During the course of assessment the Assessee has explained all the cash transactions before the Ld. A.O. Neither any of the transactions were doubtful nor any of the transaction is made for evasion of tax. The Ld. Addl. CIT has agreed with the genuine transaction verified during the course of assessment and the same is mentioned in the penalty Order. Therefore confirming the penalty by the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal on the facts & circumstances of the case and the same should be deleted in full. 2. For that, The Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unjustified towards conforming the penalty of Rs. 9,74,499/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 when the transactions are neither loan nor deposit. The
P a g e 1 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
amount of Rs.9,74,479/- is fully received for the business purpose and disclosed in the books of account. Out of the above transaction, Rs.5,44,499/- is received from partners and Rs. 4,30,000/- is received from other retailers who are also relatives of partners as security deposit. All the amount received are non interest bearing receipts. Out of which Rs.45,000/- is disallowed by the Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment & added to the total income. Once again Rs. 45,000/- is imposed as a penalty u/s 271D by the Ld. Addl. CIT Therefore the Ld. A.O. is agreed to the concept that all the amounts are received for business purpose. Therefore confirming the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A), without considering the business purpose as a reasonable cause, is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal on the facts & circumstances of the case and the same should be deleted , in full.
For that, The Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unjustified towards conforming the penalty of Rs. 9,74,499/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 where the penalty order is passed by the Joint Commissioner and the demand notice is signed by the Income tax officer violating Sec. 156. Therefore imposition of penalty is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be null and void Therefore confirming the penalty by the Ld. CIT (A), is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal on the facts & circumstances of the case and the same should be deleted in full.
For that, The Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unjustified towards conforming the penalty of Rs. 9,74,499/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 when the amount of Rs. 5,44,499/- is received from the partners of the firm. The fact has been explained before the CIT(Appeal)-2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has also not considered the transaction between partners and firm is out of ambit of Sec. 269SS. Therefore confirming the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A), is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal on the facts & circumstances of the case and the same should be deleted in full.”
The assessee has filed revised ground of appeal as under:
“ For that, The Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unjustified towards conforming the penalty of Rs. 9,74,499/- u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 when the transactions are neither loan nor deposit. The amount of Rs. 9,74,499/- is fully received for the business purpose and disclosed in the books of account. Out of the above transaction, Rs.6,94,499/- is received from partners and Rs. 2,80,000/- is received from other retailers who are also relatives of partners as security deposit. All the amount received are non interest
P a g e 2 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
bearing receipts. Out of which Rs. 45,000/- is disallowed by the Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment & added to the total income. Once again the said Rs. 45,000/- is imposed as a penalty u/s 271D by the Ld. Addl. CIT which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the Ld. A.O. is agreed to the accept that all the amounts are received for business purpose. Therefore confirming the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the business purpose as a reasonable cause and without considering the transaction between partners and firm are neither loan nor deposit and not covered u/s 269SS and 271D is arbitrary, unjustified illegal on the facts and circumstances of the case and the same should be deleted in full.” 4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal of the assessee are that the
assessee is engaged in selling of mobile handsets and filed its return of
income electronically on 10.09.2014 for the assessment year 2014-2015
disclosing total income of Rs.5,94,530/-. The case of the assessee was
selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act
were issued to the assessee. In response to the same, Id. AR appeared and
case of the assessee was discussed. Thereafter the AO completed the
assessment making various additions. The Assessing Officer noticed that
the assessee has accepted cash loan amounting to Rs.9,74,499/- from
various person in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act and,
therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271D of the Act against the
assessee vide order dated 14.06.2017. During the penalty proceedings, the
assessee stated that these amounts in cash were taken as security deposit
from retail shoppers situated in different rural places in Odisha against
which mobile sets were given to them. It was also stated that due to
P a g e 3 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
financial exigency, the firm has taken cash loan from partners and relatives
as under:
Sr.No. Name of the person Relationship Amount 1. Lokanath Padhy Partner 1,50,000 2. Suresh Chandra sahoo Partner 1,20,000 3. Pitabash Chandra Partner 1,39,499 Mohapatra 4. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra Partner 1,35,000 5. Susanta Rout Relative 1,60,000 6. Other persons Relative 2,70,000
The Assessing Officer did not find the explanation of the assessee
favourable and, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs.8,74,499/- u/s.271D of
the Act.
Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A),
wherein the CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not given any
reasonable cause for acceptance of cash loan and, therefore, the CIT(A) has
confirmed the penalty as levied u/s.271D of the Act.
Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the rival arguments, relevant material placed on record
of the Tribunal, inter alia, impugned penalty and CIT(A) order, paper book
spread over 125 pages, revised Ground No.2 of the assessee alongwith
supplementary written submission mainly based on the proposition of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 3.2.2015 in the case of CIT vs.
M/s. Muthoot Financiers in ITA 336/2002 and other related appeals.
P a g e 4 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a partnership
firm. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15 and assessment was
completed on 14.12.2016, wherein, all cash transactions were explained by
the assessee and duly verified by the AO. Ld A.R. submitted that during
assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that all the
transactions are genuine and did not point out any discrepancy or
irregularity or perversity therein. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble
Orissa High Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited vs State of Orissa,
83 ITR 26(SC), ld A.R. submitted that when the Assessing Officer after
verification of books of account of the assessee pertaining to all transactions
have not pointed out any discrepancy then no allegation cannot be held as
sustainable. Ld A.R. has also placed reliance on various decisions including
decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchsheel
Owners Association(2017) 395 ITR 380 (Guj) and submitted that when the
Assessing Officer has not doubted the transaction and found to be genuine,
then penalty u/s.269SS r.w.s. 271D of the Act is not maintainable.
Ld A,.R. of the assessee submitted that the impugned amount of
Rs.5,44,499/- was received by the assessee firm from its partners for
business purposes and amount of Rs.4,30,000/- was received from retailer
as security deposit against supply of mobiles and the same was duly
disclosed in the books of account maintained by the firm and verified by the
AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld A.R. submitted that
P a g e 5 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
out the said amount Rs.4,30,000/-, an amount of Rs.45,000/- was received
from Shri Biswaranjan Patnaik, which was also disallowed by the Assessing
Officer during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer
levied penalty by considering incorrect facts, hence, penalty is not
sustainable. Ld A.R. further pointed out that the notice of demand has
been issued by ITO, Ward 4(1) whereas the penalty has been imposed by
the JCIT. Therefore, notice of demand is not a valid notice of demand,
therefore, imposition of penalty is null and void without service of notice of
demand. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of CIT vs. R.M.Chidambaram Pillai(1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC) and the
decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Muthoot Financiers
(supra), ld A.R. submitted that the loans from partners cannot be treated as
cash loans in violation of section 269SS of the Act, which does not attract
penalty.
Drawing my attention towards CBDT Circular No.09/DV/2016 dated
26th April, 2016, ld A.R. submitted that the Assessing officer below the rank
of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) has been advised to make a
reference to the range head regarding any violation of provisions of section
269SS and 269T of the Act, as the case may be, in the course of the
assessment proceedings, or any proceedings under the Act. Ld A.R.
vehemently pointed out that in para 4 of said circular, it has ben clarified in
the ‘departmental view’ that the Assessing Officer below the rank of JCIT
P a g e 6 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
shall not issue the notice in this regard and the range head issue the
penalty notice and shall dispose/complete the proceedings within the
limitation prescribed u/s.275(1)(c) of the Act. Ld A.R. also submitted that
the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs.9,79,499/- u/s.271D of the Act
when the transactions were neither loan nor deposit. The amount of
Rs.9,74,499/- has been received for the business purposes and was
disclosed in the books of account of the firm. Ld A.R. explaining the facts
of the case submitted that out of said amount Rs.5,44,499/- was received
from the partners and Rs.4,30,000/- was received from retailers as security
deposit. Ld A.R. submitted that all the amounts are non-interest bearing
receipts and the Assessing Officer has accepted that the amounts have
been received for the business purposes. Ld A.R. submitted that the
Assessing officer is not correct in imposing the penalty despite the fact that
out of above, an amount of Rs.45,000/- received from Shri Biswa ranjan
Patnaik has been disallowed by the AO during the course of assessment
proceedings and this amount has also been included by imposing penalty
u./s.271D of the Act. Ld A.R. submitted that in view of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Chidambaram Pillai (supra) and Delhi
High Court in the case of Muthoot Financiers (supra), penalty on the cash
amount received from partners cannot be levied. Ld A.R. further submitted
that in view of the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Sanjay
Ramchandra Phand Cs vs ACIT (ita No.2234/PN//2012) , when the
P a g e 7 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
genuineness of the transaction has not been doubted, a fact not
controverted by the Revenue, therefore, there was a reasonable cause on
the part of the assessee for accepting such security deposit in cash. Ld A.R.
submitted that the assessee is in the business of selling of mobile handsets.
For the purpose of business, the assessee had taken loan from partners and
also received security deposit from the retailers for supplying mobile sets.
The amounts received from the partners and security deposits received
from the retailers are reflected in the books of account of the assessee and
same were fully disclosed and explained during the course of assessment
proceedings and the Assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of
transactions. It is also a fact that out of Rs.4,30,000/- amount received
from Biswa Ranjan Patnaik, Rs.45,000/- was disallowed by the Assessing
officer during the assessment proceedings. I find that on similar issue,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Muthoot Financiers (supra) has
dismissed the appeal of the revenue deleting the penalty levied u/s.271D of
the Act observing as under:
“9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the answer to the issue which arises for our consideration has its contours in realm of the Partnership Law as well as the Act. In fact, the status of partners qua the firm has been summed up by the Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Chidambaram Pillai (supra), wherein the interplay between provisions of the two enactments was examined. The Supreme Court was of the view that a firm is not a legal person even though it has some attributes of the personality. According to the Court, partnership is a certain relation between persons, the product of agreement to share the profits of a business. „Firm‟ is a collective noun, a compendious expression to designate an entity, not a person. In Income Tax Law, a firm is a unit of
P a g e 8 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
assessment by special provisions but is not a full person; which leads to the next step that since a contract of employment requires two distinct persons viz. the employer and the employee, there cannot be a contract of service, in strict law, between a firm and one of its partners. So that any agreement for remuneration of a partner for taking part in the conduct of the business must be regarded as portion of the profits being made over as a reward for the human capital brought in. The Supreme Court, further relying upon its own judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar vs. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 SC, wherein it had concluded that business of the firm was a business of the partner and the profits of the firm, were the profits of the partners and the expenditure incurred by partners in earning such shares was admissible for deduction in arriving at the total income under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court quoted from the commentary of well-known author namely A.C.Sampath Iyengar, 6th Edn. 1973-pp. 1063-1064 (Vol. II), gave the following summary as under:
"Any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration paid by a firm to any of its partners cannot be deducted by the firm as an expenditure in its profit-computation. The reason is this: The partners in a firm are ultimately entitled to the entire profits of the firm, according to their shares in the business. Therefore, the entirety of such profits should be brought to charge and no portion be exempted by giving' the same away to a partner as his salary, bonus, commission, remuneration or interest. A partner is bound to find the necessary finances for the partnership and hence any interest on capital supplied by the partner is not deductible. A partner's rendering services to the firm stands on the same footing as his providing capital; only instead of in money, in kind. Further, no remuneration is permissible to a partner for his rendering services to the firm, since the carrying on of the business of the partnership is a' primary duty which, all the partners, or some of the partners acting for all, are required to do by the law relating to partnership. The matter may be looked at another way too. In law, a partner cannot be employed by his firm, for a man cannot be his own employer. A contract can only be bilateral and the same person cannot be a party on both sides, particularly in a contract of personal employment. A supposition that a partner is employed by the firm would involve that the employee must be looked upon as occupying the position of one of his own employers, which is legally impossible. Consequently, when an arrangement is made by which a partner works and receives sums as wages for services rendered, the agreement should in truth be regarded as a mode of adjusting the
P a g e 9 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
amount that must be taken to have been contributed to the partnership's assets by a partner who has made what is really a contribution in kind, instead of contribution in money. Hence, all the aforesaid payments are non-deductible."
The aforesaid conclusion of the Supreme Court was referred to by the Madras High Court in V.Sivakumar’s case (supra), wherein the assessee was a partner in four firms and the proprietor in Reliance Realtors and in the Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee had taken loan from the four firms which were found to be in cash. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 18 lakhs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. On a further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to give a definite finding whether the transaction was between the firm and partner. The Assessing Officer passed a fresh order that the assessee individual was a partner in four firms from where funds had been advanced to the assessee and imposed a penalty of Rs. 18 lakhs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal holding that the transactions between the partner and the firm do not partake the character of a loan or deposit and therefore, there is no applicability of the provisions of Section 269-SS of the Act. The further appeal preferred by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal which resulted in the revenue filing an appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the conclusion of the Tribunal that there is no separate legal entity for the partnership firm and the partner is entitled to use the funds of the firm. 11. We further note that even the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema), (2008) 304 ITR 172 (Raj), relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R.M.Chidambaram Pillai (supra), dealing with identical facts, wherein, the firm during the relevant Assessment Year, received deposits from its partners. The Assessing Officer, considering it be a intra-party transactions of deposit, otherwise, than by way of a cheque or by bank draft, considered the payment and repayment in violation of Section 269-SS and 269-T of the Act, imposed penalty, for receiving deposits in cash and payment in cash. The Court after consideration, has held that the partnership firm being not a juristic person, the inter-se transaction between the firm and the partners are not governed by the provisions of Section 269-SS and 269-T of the Act.
At the same time, we note that the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. A.W.Fijjies and Co. and Ors. [1953] 24 ITR 405(SC), held that the partners of the firm are
P a g e 10 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
distinct as a civil entities while the firm as such is a separate and distinct unit for the purpose of assessment.
The question raised is whether in a transaction between the firm and the partner the provision of Section 269SS would be attracted and if we hold that Section 269SS was attracted and therefore violated, whether the respondent assessee would be entitled to benefit of Section 273B of the Act. The position that emerges is that there are three different High Courts, which have held that Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees. We appreciate and understand that the opposite view is possible. Keeping in view that three different High Courts have taken a consistent view on the facts, which are similar to the facts in the present case, which includes the judgment of the Madras High Court as late as in the year 2013, we respectfully follow the same line of reasoning given by the Madras High Court in the case of V.Sivakumar (supra).
Having said that, it is clear that any interest, salary, bonus, C ommission or remuneration paid by a firm to any of its partners should be regarded as a mode of adjusting the amount that must have been taken to have been contributed to the partnership assets by a partner, who can really contribute in kind as well as in money. Applying this principle, we are of the view that the transaction effected in these cases cannot partake the colour of loan or deposit and as such, Section 269-SS nor Section 271-D of the Act would come into play. 15. We further find, it is an undisputed fact that the money was brought by the partners of the assessee-firms. The source of money has also not been doubted by the appellant revenue. The transaction was bona fide and not aimed to avoid any tax liability. Creditworthiness of the partners and genuineness of the transactions coupled with the relationship between the “two persons” and two different legal interpretations put forward could constitute a reasonable cause in a given case for not invoking Section 271-D and 271-E of the Act. Section 273B of the Act would come to the aid and help of the respondent-assessee. In this regard, we refer to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Saini Medical Store (supra), as under:
“6.1 As pointed out earlier, there is no doubt about the genuineness of the transactions which have been fully accepted in the assessment made for the year under consideration. Even if, there is any ignorance, which resulted in the infraction of law, the default is technical or venial which did not prejudice the interests of the Revenue as no tax avoidance or tax evasion was involved. To my mind, bona fide belief coupled with the genuineness of the
P a g e 11 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
transactions would constitute reasonable cause under Section 273B for not invoking the provisions of Section 271E of the Act, The impugned order of penalty is cancelled."
The findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have been confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269T of the Act is a finding of fact based on appreciation of material on record. It does not give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law.”.
Even, in the case of Sunil Kumar Goel (supra), it was observed:-
“The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording its conclusion that a "reasonable cause" had been shown by the respondent-assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied on the fact that the respondent-assessee had produced his cash books, depicting loans taken by him unilaterally before the Revenue. Another fact taken into consideration was that no prejudice was caused to the Revenue in the instant action of the respondent- assessee inasmuch as the respondent-assessee did not attempt by the impugned act to avoid any tax liability. Furthermore, there is no dispute about the fact that the instant cash transactions of the respondent-assessee were with the sister concern and that these transactions were between the family and due to business exigency. A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, specially in a case where the disclosure thereof is contained in the compilation of accounts and which has no tax effect, in our view establishes "reasonable cause" under Section 273B of the Act. Since the respondent-assessee had satisfactorily established "reasonable cause" under Section 273B of the Act he must be deemed to have established sufficient cause for not invoking the penal provisions (sections 271D and 271E of the Act) against him”.
Insofar as the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, are concerned, we first refer to the judgment in the decision of this Court in Nagpur Golden Transport Company (supra). At the outset, we note that the said case was not with regard to the violation of Section 269-SS or the penalty imposed under Section 271-D of the Act. Even on facts, it is seen that
P a g e 12 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
assessee firm in that case namely Nagpur Golden Transport Company has paid interest to the firm Laxmi Chand Jiwan Dass. The controversy arose because the partner in the firm Laxmi Chand Jiwan Dass was the same as in the assessee firm i.e. Nagpur Golden Transport Company. The Income Tax Officer formed the opinion that the payment of interest by one firm to the other was the payment to the partners of the firm inasmuch as the partners in the two firms were common, attracting the applicability of Section 40(B) which has an overriding effect on the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. It was in the aforesaid context, this Court had held that under the scheme of the Act, the firm and its partners are treated as separate legal entity so far as the provisions of tax laws are concerned, more so, by framing an order of the assessment, the firm and its partners are treated as two separate legal entitles. The said judgment is therefore, not applicable to the facts here. Similarly, the judgment relied by Mr. Rohit Madan in K.Kelukutti (supra). The question in that case was whether partners constituting a partnership firm carrying on one business constitute thereafter another partnership firm carrying on a separate and distinct business, are two distinct partnership firms, in whose hand, the turnover of the two businesses falls to be respectively assessed or is there in law only a single partnership firm liable to assessment on the turnover of both businesses. Suffice to state, the question which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court being not identical to the one which falls for our consideration in these appeals, we do not think, the same would be of any help to Mr. Rohit Madan.
In view of the submissions made, we are of the view that the present appeals filed by the revenue are devoid of any merit. We answer the substantial question of law against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Chidambaram Pillai
(supra) has held that the partnership firm is only a collective name of
separate persons and not a legal person in itself and therefore, a partner
cannot be a servant of the firm because no person can be his own servant
in law. The ratio of the above decision would be squarely applicable in the
case under appeal before us. Similar to the contract for employment where
P a g e 13 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
two distinct persons employee and employer are required, for the purpose
of giving and acceptance of loan or deposit also, two different persons are
required –(i) the lender and (ii) the debtor (i.e. the borrower. It was also
held that firm and partner are not two different persons, therefore, credit in
the books of firm in the account of partners, it cannot be said that firm has
taken loan or deposit from partner.
In view of above discussion and respectfully following the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Chidambaram Pillai (supra) and
also Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Muthoot Financers (supra), I
am of the view that the transaction between the partners and firm are not
covered u/s.269SS of the Act.
We are in agreement of the contention of ld A.R. of the assessee that
the security deposit was received by the assessee from the retailers for the
business purposes of the assessee. It is a fact that in this line of business,
without security deposit, the assessee cannot run its business profitably. In
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that it does not come under the purview of section 269SS of the Act and
consequently, penalty levied u/s.271D is not exigible. Therefore, I delete
the penalty of Rs.9,74,499/- and allow the appeal of the assessee.
P a g e 14 | 15
ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 23 /08/2019.
Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 23/08/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant: M/s. Shree Sai Enterprises, 137, C, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
The Respondent. Addl. CIT, Range-4, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//
Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 15 | 15