Penalty under Section 271D not applicable on cash received as share application money from directors and shareholders

ITAT Chandigarh held that penalty under Section 271D was not leviable on cash received as share application money from directors/shareholders. The assessee, a public limited company operating hotels with listed shares, received cash deposits during FY 2011-12 as share application money. Following Punjab & Haryana HC precedent in Eqbal Inn Hotels Ltd, the tribunal ruled that share application money does not constitute loans or deposits under Section 269SS. Despite pending SEBI disputes and Company Law Board directions keeping share allotment in abeyance, the amount remained classified as share application money. The tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, rejecting revenue's reclassification attempt. Appeal allowed.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain to the applicability of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act for alleged violation of section 269SS by acceptance of cash amounts as share application money. Specifically, the issues include:

(i) Whether the receipt of Rs. 1.75 crores in cash by the assessee company from directors/shareholders constitutes a violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which prohibits acceptance of loans or deposits in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000.

(ii) Whether the amounts received in cash can be classified as share application money or should be treated as loans or deposits for the purposes of section 269SS.

(iii) The impact of the timing of the increase in authorized share capital relative to the receipt of cash amounts and the interim order of the Company Law Board (CLB) barring allotment of shares.

(iv) The question of limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Applicability of Section 269SS and Section 271D on Cash Receipt as Share Application Money

The legal framework under section 269SS prohibits acceptance of loans or deposits by any person otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if the amount exceeds Rs. 20,000. Section 271D imposes penalty equal to the amount of such loan or deposit accepted in contravention of section 269SS.

The assessee contended that the amounts received in cash were share application money and not loans or deposits, and hence section 269SS was not applicable. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents including CIT vs Idhayam Publications Ltd, CIT vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners Pvt Ltd, and the jurisdictional ITAT decision in M/s Iqbal Inn and Hotels Ltd, which held that share application money or deposits in current account are not loans or deposits within the meaning of section 269SS.

The assessee also cited the jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs Speedways Rubber Pvt Ltd, which held that if the transaction was bona fide and default was technical, penalty under section 271D was not justified.

The Revenue, however, argued that the cash amounts were loans or deposits because the assessee was not authorized to raise share application money prior to the increase in authorized share capital and the CLB order barred allotment of shares. Therefore, the amounts received in cash were not genuine share application money but deposits, attracting section 269SS and penalty under section 271D.

The Additional CIT relied on the Jharkhand High Court decision in Bhalotia Engineering Works Pvt Ltd, which held that share application money falls within the definition of deposits under section 269SS.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and Additional CIT reclassified the share application money received in cash as loans/deposits solely because the special resolution to increase authorized share capital was passed after receipt of the amounts and due to the CLB interim order. However, the Tribunal observed that the CLB order only barred allotment of shares and not receipt of share application money or increase of authorized share capital. The subsequent passing of the special resolution and increase in authorized share capital in the same financial year was duly reflected in the audited accounts.

The Tribunal further noted that the audited balance sheets, signed by auditors and directors, consistently showed the amounts as share application money pending allotment, and the AO had accepted the genuineness of the transactions under section 68 during assessment proceedings without adverse findings.

It was held that the provisions of section 269SS apply only to loans or deposits and not to share application money. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT vs LP India Pvt Ltd, which distinguished the Jharkhand High Court decision and held that share application money received in cash is not a loan or deposit under section 269SS.

The Tribunal also referred to Rule 2(b) of the Companies Rules, 2014, which excludes share application money from the definition of deposit.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the cash amounts received as share application money do not attract the provisions of section 269SS and penalty under section 271D is not leviable.

2. Impact of Timing of Increase in Authorized Share Capital and CLB Order

The Revenue argued that since the authorized share capital was increased only after receipt of cash amounts and after the CLB order barring allotment of shares, the amounts received prior to these events cannot be treated as share application money.

The assessee countered that there is no bar under the Companies Act to receive share application money before increase of authorized share capital; the only restriction is that shares cannot be allotted without sufficient authorized capital. The increase in authorized share capital and passing of special resolutions were carried out in accordance with law and duly reflected in the records.

The Tribunal examined the sequence of events and the CLB interim order dated 13.12.2011, which restrained only the allotment of shares on preferential basis to promoters but did not prohibit receipt of share application money or increase of authorized share capital. The notices for postal ballot and the shareholders meeting for approval of increase in authorized capital and issue of preference shares were issued and held in accordance with the Companies Act and postal ballot rules.

The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's reliance on the timing of the authorized capital increase and CLB order as a basis to reclassify the amounts as deposits was misplaced and not supported by the legal provisions or facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent approval and increase in authorized capital remedied any technical irregularity.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the timing of the authorized capital increase and the CLB order did not affect the nature of the amounts as share application money.

3. Limitation for Initiation of Penalty Proceedings

The assessee contended that the penalty order dated 20.11.2015 was barred by limitation under section 275(1)(c) as the AO referred the matter for penalty initiation after passing the assessment order on 31.03.2015, and the penalty order was passed beyond six months.

The CIT(A) held that the AO only referred the matter to JCIT for initiation of penalty proceedings and did not initiate penalty proceedings herself. The Additional CIT issued the penalty notice on 29.06.2015 and passed the penalty order within prescribed time on 20.11.2015, which was within the limitation period.

The assessee did not challenge the CIT(A) order on limitation before the Tribunal, and the issue was not reopened.

4. Reclassification of Share Application Money as Loans or Deposits

The assessee argued that the AO and Additional CIT had no power to reclassify share application money as loans or deposits. The nature of the transaction was clearly reflected in audited accounts and accepted during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted the ITAT Delhi decision in Dhruv Chaudhary v/s ADIT, which held that the AO cannot reclassify share application money as loan for tax purposes.

The Revenue contended that the reclassification was justified due to the irregularities in authorized capital and CLB order. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to bring any conclusive evidence to override the accounting treatment and acceptance by AO.

5. Treatment of Judicial Precedents

The assessee relied on various judgments including:

• CIT vs Idhayam Publications Ltd (Madras High Court)
• CIT vs Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners Pvt Ltd (Madras High Court)
• M/s Iqbal Inn and Hotels Ltd vs JCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
• CIT vs Speedways Rubber Pvt Ltd (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
• CIT vs LP India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
• CIT v. Vamshi Chemicals Ltd (Calcutta High Court)
• CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd (Supreme Court)

The Revenue relied on:

• Bhalotia Engineering Works Pvt Ltd vs CIT (Jharkhand High Court)
• CIT, Chennai vs Object Frontier Software (Supreme Court - SLP admitted)
• ITO vs Nandi Promoters (ITAT Delhi)

The Tribunal gave precedence to the jurisdictional High Court decisions and ITAT decisions favorable to the assessee, particularly the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Eqbal Inn & Hotels Ltd, which upheld the ITAT Chandigarh decision and distinguished the Jharkhand High Court ruling. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's admission of SLP in Object Frontier Software does not amount to overruling the Madras High Court decision.

6. Reasonable Cause and Bona Fide Nature of Transaction

The assessee submitted that the cash receipts were bona fide share application money used to meet financial requirements and debt-equity ratio of the company. The AO and Additional CIT rejected the plea of urgency and reasonable cause as afterthoughts, citing availability of banking facilities for fund transfers.

The Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's rejection of bona fide nature, especially since the AO accepted the genuineness of the transactions under section 68 and the amounts were reflected in audited accounts.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that:

• The amounts received in cash by the assessee company from directors/shareholders constituted share application money and not loans or deposits within the meaning of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act.
• The provisions of section 269SS and penalty under section 271D are not attracted on the share application money received in cash.
• The timing of increase in authorized share capital and the CLB interim order barring allotment of shares did not affect the nature of the amounts as share application money.
• The AO and Additional CIT erred in reclassifying share application money as loans or deposits without any conclusive evidence and contrary to accounting treatment accepted during assessment.
• The penalty proceedings were initiated and concluded within the prescribed limitation period.
• Judicial precedents of the jurisdictional High Court and ITAT support the assessee's contention that share application money received in cash is not a loan or deposit under section 269SS.

Significant Holdings

"There is no prohibition in the Companies Act that share application money cannot be received without having sufficient authorized capital. The only restriction is that shares cannot be allotted unless and until the company has sufficient authorized capital."

"The provisions of section 269SS apply only to loans or deposits and not to share application money. The amount received as share application money cannot be equated with loans or advances within the meaning of section 269SS."

"The interim order of the Company Law Board dated 13.12.2011 barred the allotment of shares but did not prohibit receipt of share application money or increase of authorized share capital."

"The AO and Additional CIT have no power to reclassify share application money as loans or deposits for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271D."

"The penalty under section 271D is not leviable where the amounts received in cash are bona fide share application money and not loans or deposits."

"The judgment of the jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Eqbal Inn & Hotels Ltd is binding and supports the view that share application money received in cash is not covered under section 269SS."

"The mere admission of SLP by the Supreme Court does not overrule the binding effect of the jurisdictional High Court decisions favorable to the assessee."

"The penalty proceedings initiated by the Additional CIT were within the prescribed limitation period under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act."

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs. 1.75 crores levied under section 271D.

---