TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee u/s. 143(3) was completed on 11.12.2009 at a total income of Rs. 1,03,78,160/- as against returned income of Rs. 1,02,55,632/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer having perused the loan account of Shri Harpal Singh Pasricha, Managing Director of the assessee company, noticed that a loan of Rs. 30 lacs was accepted by the assessee company on behalf of Shri Harpal Singh Pasricha from the proprietary company of Ms. Neelam Kaur, M/s. Navyug Sales Corporation by passing a book entry in its books of account. The AO further observed that since accepting of loan/deposits otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft exceeding Rs. 20,000/- was in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not come to the rescue of the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assesseecompany has come up in this appeal before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in order to expore financial assistance from lending institution, the assessee company had the requirement of raising its share capital which was agreed to be pooled by its directors in the following combination: Mr. Harpal Singh (MD) Rs.50,00,000/- Smt. Neelam Kaur(Director) Rs.15,00,000/- Total Rs.65,00,000/-. The above directors had already given loans to the assessee company which had credit balances of Rs. 28,83,793/- and Rs. 68,94,925/- respectively and it was decided to convert the loan A/c into share capital of the company. Mr. Harpal Singh had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to Shri Harpal Singh Pasricha and Mrs. Neelam Kaur as the loan account of both Directors was later on adjusted against share capital and shares were issued subsequently. In support, ld. AR of the assessee relied upon following decisions: (i). CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 260 (Del) (ii). CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 433 (Delhi) (iii). Order dated 16.01.2015 of ITAT, Delhi (ITA Nos.2253 & 2259/Del/2013 & Ors.) in the cases of ACIT vs. M/s. Vardaan Fashion and ACIT vs. Shri Inderpal Singh Wadhawan. (iv). Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd. vs. DCIT(1996) 56 TTJ(Ahd.) 580 (v). Sunflower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (1996) 61 ITD (Pune) 227. (vi). Order dt. 21.01.11 of ITAT, Mumbai (ITA No. 698/M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit or specified sum taken or accepted from, or any loan or deposit or specified sum taken or accepted by,- (a) the Government; (b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act; (d) any Government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); (e) s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee-company in the present case by way of journal entry (book entry) and there is no transfer of funds. Such acceptance of loan by way of journal entry, being not covered by the provisions of section 269SS, the assesseecompany cannot be held to be liable for penalty u/s. 271D for acceptance of loan in violation of section 269SS. As a matter of fact, the journal entry passed in assessee company's account had the effect of reducing loan of one director and recording the loan of other director. Thus, the loan of one director was transferred to be held as loan of other director. It is also notable that the assessee company received the original loan through A/c payee cheques only. The copies of account payee cheques are placed by the asses....