CIT PATIALA vs. M/S MAHAVIR TEXTILES CHD.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings against M/s Mahavir Textiles, Chandigarh (the assessee) for assessment year 1991-92, after finding a cash payment of Rs. 1,05,000/- made to Sudershan Kumar Jain, HUF. The AO issued a notice under Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the payment was a repayment of a loan, not a deposit. The AO rejected this stand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/- under Section 271E. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the penalty, holding that the transaction was a loan repayment and not a deposit, and that the assessee had a bonafide belief that Section 269T was not attracted. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the CIT(A)'s view. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala (the revenue) referred a question of law to the High Court.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee. The Court agreed with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the transaction was of a loan and not of a deposit. The Court reasoned that if there was a reasonable explanation for a cash transaction, no penalty should be imposable. The Court referred to Section 273B, which was introduced to provide for reasonable cause for failure, and also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) Vs. Kum.A.B.Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258, which held that if a cash payment was on account of a reasonable belief, penalty would not be justified. The Court concluded that if there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and the assessee could prove a reasonable cause for not adhering to the mode of payment by account-payee cheque or demand draft, the penalty might not be levied. Therefore, no case was made out for the imposition of penalty. The question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under Section 271E on the ground that the provisions of Section 269T were not attracted as the transaction involved was that of a loan and not a deposit? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the payment of Rs. 1,05,000/- was a repayment of a loan and not a deposit, and therefore, Section 269T was not attracted. The assessee also contended that there was a bonafide belief that the provisions of Section 269T were not applicable among family members. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the transaction was a deposit and not a loan repayment, thus attracting the provisions of Section 269T and warranting the penalty under Section 271E. The revenue challenged the cancellation of the penalty by the CIT(A) and the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its order dated 20.8.1997 passed in I.T.A.No.291/Chandi/94, in respect of the assessment year 1991-92. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO u/s 271E on the ground that the provisions of section 269T were not attracted as the transaction involved was that of a loan and not a deposit?”
During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that assessee had made a cash payment of Rs.1,05,000/- to Sudershan Kumar Jain, HUF. Notice was issued under Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short “the Act”). In reply to which
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 271E
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs A.K.Thangamaligai, Manapparai, TrichyITA 2868/CHNY/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Nisa Chits India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs ITO, Corporate Ward-1, CoimbatoreITA 2868/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Pedapudi Primary Agricultural Co Operative… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, TenaliITA 525/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Pedapudi Primary Agricultural Co Operative… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, TenaliITA 524/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Pedapudi Primary Agricultural Co Operative… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, TenaliITA 523/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
