HINDUSTAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3387/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2016AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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?

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashu Tandon, CA
For Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.01.2016Pronounced: 20.01.2016

ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, AM:

1.

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’).

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →