2021 (10) TMI 402 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remits matter for fund source verification, stresses compliance with Income Tax Act

M/s Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 3 Hyderabad

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the source of funds received from ... Penalty u/s 271D - Default u/s 269SS - cash loan(s) availed form its Managing Director in current account - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2021 (5) TMI 176 - ITAT HYDERABAD] the assessee company has received cash from its Managing Director for meeting its day-to-day emergency expenses. In this situation, the decision relied by the assessee will be relevant and the assessee Company shall be entitled to relief as per the provisions of section 273B - the assessee was not able to explain the genuineness of the source of funds obtained from its Managing Director - we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO to examine that no unexplained funds are introduced in the business of the assessee Company as loan from the Managing Director and if it found that the source of fund obtained from the Managing Director of the assessee Company is explained then delete the penalty levied invoking the provisions of section 271D. We thus adopt the above detailed discussion mutatis mutandis and restore the instant issue as well back to the Assessing Officer in the very terms - Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Imposition of section 271D penalty for alleged cash loans availed from Managing Director in current account.Analysis:The appellant's appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 challenges the imposition of a penalty under section 271D by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad. The primary grievance raised is that both lower authorities erred in law and on facts regarding the cash loans received from the Managing Director. The appellant argued that the cash received was meant for day-to-day expenses on construction sites and had a genuine purpose. Notably, a similar issue had arisen in the preceding assessment year 2012-13, where a co-ordinate bench's order emphasized the nature of the transaction between the appellant and the Managing Director as a current account and not a loan transaction. Despite this, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax deemed it fit to levy the penalty under section 271D. The CIT (A) upheld this decision, emphasizing the need to prevent the introduction of unaccounted funds in the form of cash receipts. However, during the proceedings, the appellant provided explanations regarding the source of funds from the Managing Director, including payments for laborers and medical emergencies, derived from the sale of scrap. The appellant also cited relevant case laws to support their arguments.The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. It acknowledged that the appellant had received cash from the Managing Director for day-to-day emergency expenses, aligning with the nature of the transaction as a current account. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to sufficiently explain the genuineness of the source of funds obtained from the Managing Director. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to ensure that no unexplained funds were introduced as a loan from the Managing Director. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the source of funds diligently and make a decision accordingly. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of justice and adherence to the provisions of the Income Tax Act.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the source of funds received from the Managing Director. The Tribunal urged the Assessing Officer to issue a coherent order in both the assessment years, considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The judgment was pronounced on 29th September 2021 by the ITAT Hyderabad.