2014 (12) TMI 850 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue appeals on penalties under Income Tax Act rejected in favor of assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. National Clothing Co.

The appeals by the Revenue challenging penalties imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for violations of Section 269SS were disposed of ... Deletion of penalty u/s 271D – Whether Section 269SS is violated if there is a book entry through journal and when there is no actual payment in cash - Held that:- The Tribunal rightly was of the view that penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271D on the ground that merely passing a journal entry would not lead to violation of Section 269SS of the Act as there was no transfer of money - There was no cash transaction - the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. [2003 (1) TMI 46 - DELHI High Court] followed - in view of the language of Explanation to Section 269SS, it has been held that the provision would apply to loan or deposit of money, and not mere formal entries resulting in debit or credit –thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue. Issues:1. Penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for book entries violating Section 269SS.Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to an appeal by the Revenue challenging the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent assessee had received loans, and the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for violating Section 269SS. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the penalty for one entry but restored another for fresh examination. However, the Tribunal deleted the penalty for one entry on the grounds that it was a mere journal entry with no cash transaction, following previous court decisions.2. The second issue involves another appeal related to the deletion of a penalty under Section 271D. The Assessing Officer re-imposed the penalty after a remand order, citing cross entries as a violation of Section 269SS. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the entry as a mere book entry and deleted the penalty. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on previous court rulings, emphasizing that the provision applies to loans or deposits of money, not formal entries resulting in debit or credit.3. Both appeals were disposed of in favor of the respondent assessee, citing legal precedents and interpretations of Section 269SS. The judgments highlight that the provision is applicable to actual transactions involving money and not just formal book entries, emphasizing the importance of cash transactions in determining violations of the law. The decisions provide clarity on the interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, ensuring consistency in legal assessments and penalties related to financial transactions.