KAILASH PRINTMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HAMIRPUR vs. JCIT, MANDI RANGE, MANDI

1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ajay Patyal (Advocate) – Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
05-03-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
24-03-2025
आदेश / O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

Rs.2.10 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
2. It could be seen that the penalty has been levied on the fact that the assessee received loans / deposits of Rs.10.84 Lacs from its director in cash on various dates as tabulated in para-1 of penalty order dated 20-12-2018. The Ld. AO, invoking the provisions of Sec.271D, show-caused the assessee. The assessee refuted the same and stated that the receipt was neither loan nor deposits but the company was in need of fund to run the business which was provided by the director.
However, Ld. AO rejected the same and levied penalty u/s 271D for Rs.10.84 Lacs for violating the provisions of Sec.269SS.
3. The Ld. AO levied another penalty u/s 271E for violation of Sec.269T on the ground that the assessee repaid loans to M/s Raj
Stone Crusher and Smt. Sheetal Chugh in cash. The assessee reiterated that the amount was repaid on behalf of the director.
However, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.2.10 Lacs against the assessee.
4. During first appeal, the assessee stated that it was in dire need of funds to run the business and accordingly, small amounts were received from directors on various occasions in cash to meet the same.
The assessee relied on various judicial decision to supports its stand that such transactions would not attract penalty provisions. However,
Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the penalties against which the assessee is in further appeals before us.

Our findings and Adjudication
5. The assessee has placed on record ledger extract of its director
Sh. Vinod Thakur. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that it is a running account. The assessee has received multiple payments and also repaid the same from time to time. Few of the payments have been received in cash. Two payments have been made to M/s Raj
Stone Crusher and Ms. Sheetal Chugh on behalf of its director. It is clear that the assessee has not obtained loan from these two concerns but it has made the payments on behalf of its director. Therefore, penalty u/s 271E r.w.s. 269T could not be sustained. It could also be observed that substantial receipts as well as payments are through banking channels only and it is running account spreading over multiple financial years. Under these circumstances, the argument that the aforesaid sums were neither loans nor deposits rather the same were obtained by the assessee to run its business and taken for business exigency, is to be accepted. Therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D. We order so.
6. Both appeals stand allowed.
Order pronounced on 24-03-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 24-03-2025. 4

आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF