2021 (7) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port u/s 92E of the Act in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee filed her return declaring total income at Rs. 18,61,808. The assessee reported four payments totaling Rs. 19,64,31,914, in the tax audit report, as having been made to persons specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act as under: Mahajan Adat Dukan Prop Yogita Mahajan Purchases Rs. 16,34,02,140/- Soni Adat Dukan Prop Prabhavati Mahajan Purchases Rs. 3,28,31,774/- Sunil P Mahajan Rent Rs. 1,80,000/- Yogesh P Mahajan Rent Rs. 1,80,000/- 3. The AO observed that total of such transactions in the nature of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) exceeded the qualifying limit of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains or furnishes an incorrect information or document, the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of each international transaction or specified domestic transaction entered into by such person. (2)......' 5. On circumspection of the above provision, it is clear that the penalty gets attracted where the assessee fails to keep records and documents etc., inter alia, in respect of a specified domestic transact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... want to clarify that there can be no estoppel against the provisions of the Act. If a particular transaction does not fall within the ambit of a specific provision, the same cannot be considered as so falling merely because the assessee took a mistaken view on that score. Coming back, we need to decide as to whether the transactions reported by the assessee u/s 40A(2)(b) were actually covered within its ken. To resolve the controversy, let us have a glance at the relevant portion of section 40A(2)(b), pertaining to an individual, as is the assessee, which runs as follows:- '(b) The persons referred to in clause (a) are the following, namely:- (i) where the assessee is an individual ... any relative of the assessee' 8. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purposes of this clause' only. On the other hand, section 2 is definition clause of the Income-tax Act, which begins with the following words: 'In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires...'. Thus, it is graphically clear that the definition clause applies to all the provisions under the Act unless the context of a particular section or set of sections otherwise requires. We have noted the language of section 56(2)(v), in which the context of the `relative' requires otherwise and for that purpose, a separate definition has been given in the Explanation. Obviously, while interpreting section 56(2)(v), we cannot go with the meaning of the term `relative' as given in section 2(41). It will have to be understood there as defined in the....