Penalty under Section 271D for cash loans remanded due to insufficient evidence on transaction nature

ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes regarding penalty under section 271D for accepting cash loans exceeding prescribed limits under section 269SS. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to determine whether transactions were loans or accommodative transactions between assessee and employer. Matter was remanded to AO to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity to assessee and obtaining necessary evidence regarding nature of transactions. Ground challenging penalty order validity on limitation was dismissed, with tribunal applying section 275(1)(a) provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of Penalty Order based on Limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Nature of Transactions and Applicability of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act.
4. Reasonable Cause for Cash Transactions and Applicability of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

1. Legality of Penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee was penalized under Section 271D for accepting a cash loan of Rs. 31,78,000/- from M/s Choudhary Bhuramal H. Jat, violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that loans exceeding Rs. 20,000/- must be taken through an account payee cheque or draft. The assessee contended that the transaction was an accommodation entry to avoid bank charges, supported by bank passbook and ledger account evidence. However, the AO and CIT(A) found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting no reasonable cause for such cash transactions and confirming the penalty.

2. Validity of Penalty Order based on Limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the penalty order was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c). The penalty proceedings were initiated on 07.08.2019, and the order was passed on 05.03.2020. The assessee cited the Delhi High Court decision in Subodh Kumar Bharagava Vs. CIT, asserting that the penalty order should have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which the penalty action was initiated, making the order time-barred. However, the Tribunal concluded that the provision of Section 275(1)(a) applied, thus dismissing the limitation argument.

3. Nature of Transactions and Applicability of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee claimed that the cash deposits were not loans but accommodation entries for avoiding bank charges, supported by the employer's confirmation. The Tribunal noted that there was no clear evidence whether the transactions were loans or sales, and therefore, the applicability of Section 269SS could not be conclusively determined. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to ascertain the true nature of the transactions and decide the applicability of Section 269SS afresh.

4. Reasonable Cause for Cash Transactions and Applicability of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the cash transactions were due to the employer's business needs and thus constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B, which could exempt the assessee from penalty. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of urgency or necessity for cash transactions. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the evidence and determine if there was a reasonable cause for the transactions, potentially exempting the assessee from penalty under Section 273B.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision on the nature of transactions and applicability of Sections 269SS and 273B, while dismissing the limitation argument under Section 275(1)(c).

---