Tribunal upholds deletion of penalties under Income Tax Act sections 271D and 271E, finding reasonable cause.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for accepting and repaying loans/deposits through journal entries, citing genuine business transactions and reliance on prior judicial decisions. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties were unjustified, confirming that the transactions were not for tax evasion purposes. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the deletion of penalties was upheld based on the reasonable cause shown by the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act for accepting and repaying loans/deposits through journal entries in violation of sections 269SS and 269T.
2. Determination of reasonable cause under section 273B for such transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalties under Sections 271D and 271E:
The primary issue revolves around the deletion of penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for accepting and repaying loans/deposits through journal entries exceeding Rs. 20,000, which contravenes sections 269SS and 269T. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalties by holding that the genuineness of the transactions made through journal entries was not in doubt and that there was a reasonable cause for such transactions.

The assessee contended that the transactions were made through journal entries due to business expediency and reasonable cause, and such entries do not constitute loans or deposits in terms of money within the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T. The Additional CIT, however, was not convinced and levied penalties, observing that even bonafide transactions carried out in violation of sections 269SS and 269T attract penalties as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (India) Ltd.

2. Determination of Reasonable Cause under Section 273B:
The CIT(A) held that the assessee had committed a default under sections 269SS and 269T but considered the provisions of section 273B, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The CIT(A) noted that the genuineness of the transactions was not doubted in the regular assessment, and there was a reasonable cause for the transactions due to the following reasons:
- The decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. was delivered only on 12.06.2012, clarifying that receiving deposits or loans through journal entries would be hit by sections 269SS and 269T.
- Prior to this decision, there were judicial decisions in favor of the assessee, such as the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. and the Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.

The CIT(A) concluded that the transactions were undertaken in the normal course of business, and there was no finding that the transactions were to evade tax. Therefore, the penalties were not justified, and the assessee had shown reasonable cause under section 273B.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal, after hearing the rival contentions and examining the facts, upheld the CIT(A)'s order. It noted that the Bombay High Court in the case of Lodha Properties Development Pvt. Ltd. and Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. had held that there was a reasonable cause for not complying with sections 269SS and 269T due to the genuine business transactions carried out through journal entries. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee's case fell under reasonable cause as per section 273B and confirmed the deletion of penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, confirming that the penalties under sections 271D and 271E were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) due to the reasonable cause shown by the assessee for the transactions conducted through journal entries. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of reasonable cause is a question of fact, and the finding of the CIT(A) was not shown to be perverse.

---