HINDUSTAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transactions were on account of a running current account for trading purposes and not loans or deposits. Therefore, the penalty provisions of sections 271D/271E were not applicable.
What were the facts?
The assessee received and paid cash amounts totaling Rs.3,13,400/- and Rs.44,700/- respectively to its sister concern. The AO imposed penalty under sections 271D/271E for alleged violation of sections 269SS/269T.
What were the issues?
Whether cash receipts and payments arising from trading transactions in a current account constitute loans or deposits attracting penalties under sections 271D/271E for violation of sections 269SS/269T.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JM
ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 31.3.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09, confirming penalty of Rs.3,58,100/- imposed by the AO u/s 271D/271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’).
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee received certain small amounts in cash totaling to Rs.3,13,400/- from its sister concern, namely, M/s Hindustan Plywood Company and also paid to it in cash certain small amounts totaling Rs.44,700/-. On being called upon to explain as to why penalty be not imposed for violation of the provisions of section 269SS/269T of the Act, the assessee, inter alia, contended that these transactions were not on account of any loan or deposit, but, on current account. Not convinced with the assessee’s submissions, the AO imposed penalty for a sum of Rs.3,58,100/- u/s 271D and section 271A of the Act representing the amounts received and repaid in cash. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the penalty order.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed from the impugned order that the assessee categorically stated that it had been purchasing and selling the goods and materials from/to M/s Hindustan Plywood Company and the amounts in question were on account of trading transactions. We have perused account of M/s Hindustan Plywood Company, a copy of which has been placed on record. Its perusal indicates that it is a running account in which there are purchase and sale transactions on different dates including 2.4.2007, 24.4.2007, 13.7.2007, 16.7.2007 and 27.11.2007 etc. Apart from that, there are other receipts and payments in cash and by cheques as well. If we look at the totality of the account, it becomes clear that the same is in the nature of current account and does not primarily represent any acceptance or repayment of loans and deposits otherwise than by way of cash as contemplated u/s 269SS/269T of the Act. It goes without saying that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271D/271E of the Act in respect of receipts and repayments in cash of transactions other than loans/deposits. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct the deletion of the penalty.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2016.
More judgments on Section 269SS
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata vs Laser Power & Infra Private Limited, KolkataITA 2926/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026