2015 (12) TMI 553 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty upheld for exceeding cash loan limit under Income Tax Act

The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty was imposed on the assessee for ... Penalty under section 271D - Held that:- The assessee has tried to wriggle out from rigours of sections 269SS and 271D of the Act by contending that such entries in the Balance Sheet and books of account are as a result of mistake committed by the Accountant but, in our view, such plea of the assessee is not acceptable as it is not a bona fide plea. Though the assessee has made an endavour to project the loan taken as amount received as a trustee by virtue of power of attorney but, in our view, such plea of the assessee is on thin ground. Had it been a case of holding the money of the lady in trust, the assessee would not have shown it as loan in its books of account and financial statement. As far as the contention of the assessee that the transaction is bona fide and there is no accounted money, hence, provisions of section 263SS is not applicable, we are unable to accept such contention of the assessee. On reading of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, it is very clear that it is applicable to a situation where cash loan is accepted in excess of the prescribed limit. Therefore, there is nothing in the said provision to show that it will apply only in a case where unaccounted cash is introduced or transaction is not bona fide. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, since it is proved that the assessee has received cash loan of ₹ 2.50 lakh in violation of provisions contained in section 269SS, imposition of penalty, in our view, is justified. - Decided against assessee. Issues:- Appeal against penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings as the assessee accepted a cash loan of Rs. 2.50 lakh, violating section 269SS of the Act. The assessee explained that the amount was received from a lady under a power of attorney relationship, not as a loan. However, the authority did not accept the explanation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakh.2. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the penalty, stating that the relationship between the parties was not that of trustee and trust as claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner observed that no evidence was provided to show the purpose of the amount received, which was reflected as a loan in the Balance Sheet.3. During the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee argued that the transaction was genuine, and no unaccounted money was involved, hence section 269SS should not apply. The assessee cited various decisions to support the argument that the penalty under section 271D should not be imposed. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the cash transaction exceeded the prescribed limit under section 269SS, justifying the penalty.4. The ITAT analyzed the submissions and evidence. It noted that the amount was shown as a loan in the Balance Sheet and books of account, indicating a violation of section 269SS. The ITAT rejected the assessee's claim of a mistake by the Accountant and the argument of the transaction being in the nature of a trust relationship. The ITAT upheld the penalty, stating that the provisions of section 269SS applied to cases where cash loans exceeded the limit, regardless of the source of funds or the bona fide nature of the transaction.5. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee's explanations were not acceptable, and the penalty was justified based on the violation of section 269SS. The ITAT clarified that the decisions cited by the assessee did not apply universally and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order imposing the penalty.6. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271D, stating that the assessee's receipt of a cash loan exceeding the prescribed limit constituted a violation of section 269SS, warranting the penalty. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).