Penalty proceedings relating to cash deposits and alleged contravention of cash-deposit restrictions remitted to AO for factual verification and fresh decision

Penalty proceedings under fiscal provisions were remitted for factual reconsideration because affidavits submitted to explain cash deposits failed evidentiary scrutiny and did not clarify bank account status when funds were given and returned; consequently the assessing officer is directed to verify facts, examine the genuineness of transaction evidence, afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter either impose the penalty or drop proceedings. The tribunal noted potential applicability of immunity for bona fide transactions but required primary fact-finding before any relief is granted and cautioned against frivolous adjournments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 271D and section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is leviable for alleged contravention of sections 269SS/269T where cash sums were deposited in the assessee's bank account for procuring demand drafts for third parties (claimed to be amounts held in trust/amanat) and later returned; (ii) Whether the matter requires remand for further factual verification by the Assessing Officer.

Issue (i): Whether the receipts and repayments of Rs. 8,47,900/- constitute loans/deposits attracting sections 269SS/269T and consequent penalty under sections 271D/271E, or whether they are amounts received in trust/amanat not covered by those provisions.

Analysis: The bench examined the factual matrix including bank records, demand draft certificates, affidavits and submissions of the parties and noted that the assessee contends the amounts were deposited to obtain demand drafts for third parties and later returned. The bench observed deficiencies and inconsistencies in affidavits and supporting material, including lack of clarity whether the third parties had bank accounts at the time of repayment and the stereotyped nature of affidavits. The Tribunal also reviewed authorities on the scope of sections 269SS/269T and on penalty mitigation where transactions are bona fide or technical defaults and where section 273B may apply.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee. The Tribunal did not finally uphold the penalty on merits; instead it directed further factual enquiry to determine the true nature of the transactions before any conclusive levy of penalty.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of factual aspects relevant to attraction of sections 269SS/269T and imposition of penalty under sections 271D/271E.

Analysis: The Tribunal found material conflicts and incomplete factual disclosures in the record (notably the affidavits and absence of clear proof about the third parties' banking position at repayment). The bench concluded that these factual issues are material to determine whether the sums were loans/deposits or amounts held in trust and whether reasonable cause exists under section 273B. Given these unresolved factual issues, the Tribunal considered it necessary that the Assessing Officer undertake detailed verification after affording the assessee opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and fresh adjudication of penalty proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for further factual enquiry and adjudication on the question whether the cash transactions constituted loans/deposits attracting sections 269SS/269T and whether penalty under sections 271D/271E is leviable; the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the Assessing Officer is directed to proceed in accordance with law, affording the assessee opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material factual disputes bearing on the character of cash receipts (loan/deposit versus trust/amanat) and the availability of reasonable cause under section 273B exist and are unresolved on record, the proper course is to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for factual verification rather than deciding the penalty conclusively on the existing record.

---