KASHYAP M. TANNA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.11(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4319/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 1995-964 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that Section 271E, as it stood prior to 01.06.2003, did not include 'loan' and only covered 'deposit', thus no penalty was leviable for loan repayment in cash for AY 1995-96.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days due to a family member's death. The penalty was levied for the repayment of a loan in cash, violating Section 269T.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271E is leviable for repayment of loan in cash for AY 1995-96, considering the scope of the section at that time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271E,Section 269T

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar

आदेश ORDER �ी अिमत शु�ला, �या स: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271E of Rs.1 lakh.

1.

2 अमेर�कन ए�स�ेस ब�क �ल�मटेड M/s American Express ITA 1064/Mum/2014 2. At the outset, the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 3 days. In support, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating that, when the order of the CIT(A) was received in the office of the Chartered Accountant, he was not in town due to death of his family member. Immediately after returning back, he filed the appeal. Thus, there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time.

3.

After hearing the parties and going through the averments made in the affidavit, we find that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and accordingly, we find it fit case for condoning the delay.

4.

In the present case, penalty has been levied on repayment of loan of Rs. 1 lakh otherwise than by account payee cheque or bank draft to Kunty M. Tanna, that is, in cash in violation of section 269T. The Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed penalty being in violation of section 269T.

5.

Before us the Ld. Counsel submitted that, admittedly it is repayment of loan and in view of the scope of penalty as prescribed under section 271E prior to 01.06.2003, no penalty was leviable on loan because the word “loan” has been inserted in the said section only w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Here in this case, the matter pertains

3 अमेर�कन ए�स�ेस ब�क �ल�मटेड M/s American Express ITA 1064/Mum/2014 to AY 1994-95; therefore, penalty under section 271E cannot be levied.

6.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the order of the AO.

7.

After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the relevant material on record, we find that, it is an undisputed fact that the penalty has been levied on repayment of loan in cash. The penalty under section 271E as it stood at the relevant time, did not had the word “loan” and the only word used in the section was repayment of any “deposit”. Thus, in AY 1995-96, no penalty was leviable on account of repayment of any loan in violation of section 269T. The word “loan” in section 271E has been brought in the statute by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.03.2003. On this preliminary ground alone, we hold that no penalty can be levied under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash in the assessment year 1995-96. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- levied is hereby deleted.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (राज�) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (RAJENDRA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 31st May, 2016

4 अमेर�कन ए�स�ेस ब�क �ल�मटेड M/s American Express ITA 1064/Mum/2014

More judgments on Section 271E

All 968 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →