VELCITI CONSULTING ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3058/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 June 2018AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of payments being below Rs. 20,000 needed verification. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and examination of the assessee's books of accounts and documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee company allegedly received cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 from its directors and made cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 to a third party, violating Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act. Penalties were levied under Sections 271D and 271E respectively.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were justified given the assessee's claim that cash transactions were below the prescribed limits and the need for verification of these claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 269T,Section 271D,Section 271E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 26.06.2018

आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

1.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, dated 30.08.2017 in 62 & 122/CIT(A)-11/2016-17 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 271D of the Act, for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13 and U/s. 271E of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13.

2 to 3058/Chny/2017 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeals however the crux of the issue is that the levy of penalty U/s.271D for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 and U/s.271E for the assessment year 2012-13 by the Ld.ACIT which is further confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is factually wrong and against the intent of the provisions of the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of engineering consultancy. During the course of assessment proceedings U/s.143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13, it was noticed by the Ld.AO that the assessee company had received cash on various occasions exceeding Rs.20,000/- from its Directors otherwise than by account payee cheque / bank draft which is in contravention to the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. On query the assessee gave various explanations, however the same was rejected by the Ld.ACIT and thereby levied penalty U/s.271D of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) agreeing with the view of Ld.ACIT confirmed the penalty. Similarly for the assessment year 2012-13, it was noticed by the Ld.ACIT that the assessee company had made cash payments aggregating to the tune of Rs.73,500/- to Shri Sakthi Ganesh, 3 to 3058/Chny/2017 Managing Director of the company, which is actually repayment of loan obtained by him on the earlier instance. Since the above cash payments of Rs.73,500/- was made by the assessee company during the relevant assessment year 2012-13 otherwise than by account payee cheque / bank draft which is in contravention to provisions of Section 269T of the Act the Ld.ACIT levied penalty invoking the provisions of Section 271E of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

4.

At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us a paper-book containing the ledger accounts of the assessee for both the relevant assessment years in order to justify that the payment made and received by the assessee was below Rs.20,000/-. It was further pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO so that the same can be verified and thereafter decide the issue on merits. The Ld.DR vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR and pleaded for confirming the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The Ld.AR has challenged before us that the basic facts observed by the Ld.Revenue Authorities are incorrect.

4 to 3058/Chny/2017 The Ld.AR has further submitted in its paper-book, ledger accounts and other relevant documents to establish that the payment made by the assessee and received by the assessee by cash was below Rs.20,000/-. In this situation, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity in order to explain the facts of the case before the Ld.Revenue Authorities. Therefore in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration and with direction to examine the books of accounts and the relevant documents produced by the assessee and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merits. The assessee is also hereby directed to promptly co- operate with the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld.Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate Order in accordance with merit and law.

6.

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 28th June, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →