Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed an appeal against an order deleting a penalty imposed under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was levied for repaying a loan in cash, violating Section 269T of the Act. There was a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty on the ground that the loan repayment was by the partners, not the firm, and the partners' personal loans were involved. The assessee was aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s observation that the partners might be liable under Section 271E. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by directing penalty on partners, but agreed that the firm was not liable.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271E was rightly deleted for the firm, and if the CIT(A) had the power to direct penalty on partners.
Sections Cited
271E, 269T, 251
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH
K.N.S. Transports, The Income Tax Officer, D.No.60-G, Paramathi Road, Vs. Ward-1, Namakkal Post-637 001. Namakkal. [PAN: AAHFK 1952E] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 28.03.2024 deleting the penalty u/s. 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).
There is a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is condoned accordingly.
The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of lorry transport. The JCIT, Namakkal Range, Namakkal has levied penalty of Rs. 19,83,610/- for violation of provisions of Section 269T of the Act as the firm has repaid certain loan amount in cash. The assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the penalty observing that loan was repaid by the partners, as vehicle and its related HP loans were standing in personal name of the partners of firm. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the concerned partners prima facie controvert the provisions of Section 269T of the Act and hence, are liable to levy penalty u/s. 271E of the Act and not the assessee firm. The assessee is aggrieved by the observation of the Ld. CIT(A)
that he has given direction to levy penalty in the case of partners.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has argued that under the provisions of Section 251 of the Act, the Ld.
CIT(A) can only confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty, but cannot give direction in the case of other assessee and therefore Ld CIT(A) has exceeded his jurisdiction.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has argued that the assessee should not have any grievance as the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s appeal and deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271E of the Act, therefore appeal should be dismissed.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The JCIT had levied penalty of Rs. 19,83,610/- u/s. 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of Section 269T of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee’s appeal. However, the assessee is aggrieved by the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the concerned partners have prima facie controvert the provisions of Section 269T of the Act and hence, are liable to levy penalty u/s. 271E of the Act and not the assessee’s firm. The Ld. CIT(A), while making the above observation has concluded that the assessee’s firm is not liable for penalty u/s. 271E of the Act and cancelled the penalty. The Ld CIT(A) has directed to cancel the penalty which is in accordance with power vested in him under Section 251 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has not given any direction in the case of partners but only observed prima facie facts to arrive at the decision that assessee has not contravened provision of section 279T. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is without any merit and therefore, dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 14th October, 2024.