Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable where cash loans were availed from agriculturists and both lender and borrower have only agricultural income and no income chargeable to tax, thereby invoking the second proviso to section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The factual matrix shows the assessee (an agriculturist) availed cash loans from other agriculturists for purchase of agricultural land. The departmental authorities accepted the major part of the loans and it is undisputed that the transactions were in cash. The second proviso to section 269SS excludes the application of section 269SS where both lender and borrower have agricultural income and neither has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. The assessee's declared non-agricultural income was below the taxable threshold and therefore not "chargeable to tax". The Revenue did not rebut the claim that the lenders had no income chargeable to tax.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271D is unsustainable and is deleted; decision rendered in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where both lender and borrower are agriculturists and neither has any income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the second proviso to section 269SS excludes the operation of section 269SS and consequent penalty under section 271D cannot be sustained.