INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR vs. VINAYAK COTFIBER PRIVATE LIMITED, BURHANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 256/IND/2024Status: HeardITAT Indore20 August 2024AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. As there were no exceptions applicable, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. The assessee had accepted loans otherwise than by an account payee bank draft.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect, and whether the penalty for violating Section 269SS should have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Respondent: Shri K. Bala Murli Krishna
Hearing: 14.08.2024Pronounced: 20.08.2024

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.02.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y.2015-16.

2.

The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

ITANo.256/Ind/2023 Vinayak Cotfibre Private Limited “(1) Whether on the facts and in law in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified to ignore the merits of the case and the fact that the assessee company has taken or accepted loan otherwise than by an account payee bank draft violating provision of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (2) Whether on the facts and in law in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by A.O., The AO imposed penalty of Rs. 3,97,000/-/s 271D for violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee company has taken or accepted loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Shri Keshav Sharma and Rs. 2,47,000/- from Shri Saurabh Sharma (total amount of Rs. 3,97,000/-) otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft.”

3.

As it is apparent from the impugned order as well as the grounds raised by the department that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in Circular No.3/2018. Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the fact that the tax effect in the present appeal filed by the department is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in Circular No.3/2018 which was subsequently revised by Circular No.5/2019 and 5/2024. It is also not the case of department that this case falls in any of exceptions provided in the said circular. Accordingly, the present appeal of the revenue is not maintainable as tax effect is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT and consequently the same is liable to be dismissed.

ITANo.256/Ind/2023 Vinayak Cotfibre Private Limited 4. In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →