TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Success: Penalties Overturned for Loan Repayment via Banking Channels</h1> <h3>Vivekananda Seva Kendra O Sishu Uddyan Versus JDIT, Exemption, Kolkata</h3> Vivekananda Seva Kendra O Sishu Uddyan Versus JDIT, Exemption, Kolkata - TMI Issues:- Appeal against penalty order u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2011-12.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the penalty order imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear during the hearing, leading to an ex parte disposal of the appeal.2. The main contention of the assessee was that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law. The penalty was initiated due to the repayment of an unsecured loan in cash to a village welfare society, which was considered a contravention of section 269T.3. The assessee, a registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and approved as a charitable institution, had made the loan repayment through bank transfer in five equal installments. The loan transaction was duly recorded and accepted as genuine by the Assessing Officer.4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271E, suspecting a violation of prescribed modes under section 269T. The assessee provided evidence highlighting the lawful compliance and the use of recognized banking channels for repayment.5. The assessee appealed the penalty order before the CIT(A), who upheld the penalty. However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated the lawful compliance and provided detailed evidence of the loan repayment through bank transfer.6. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the repayment was made through a recognized mode of payment recommended by the Finance Bill, 2014. Considering the lawful compliance and the absence of any violation, the penalty of &8377; 3,75,000 was deleted.7. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the genuine nature of the loan transaction, the charitable purpose served, and the use of banking channels for transparency. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with prescribed modes to avoid penalties under the Income Tax Act.8. The decision was pronounced on 20.03.2020, in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the significance of using recognized modes of payment and demonstrating lawful compliance to avoid penalties under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 