Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 564 - HC - Income TaxAdvances not submitted as per section 269SS and 269T of the Act - Penalty u/s 271E of the Act – Held that:- What the respondent received from the prospective buyers was advance money simplicitor which was neither a loan nor a deposit even within the meaning of the said term assigned to under section 269T of the Act - When such amount is returned that too without interest, section 269T cannot be made applicable - Section 273B of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 271E, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure – Relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners P. Ltd. [2007 (7) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. If the assessee proves that there is a reasonable cause, he is not subject to levy of penalty - the amount received by the assessee is only for the purpose of allotment of shares and it is not a deposit or loan - the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the money received is only for the purpose of allotment of shares - there is no material or evidence or any compelling reason produced by the Revenue to prove that the money received is a deposit or loan – It is a question of fact and the order of the Tribunal is not a perverse one - The findings given by both the authorities below is based on valid materials and evidence – Relying upon CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala [2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME Court] - whenever there is a concurrent finding by the authorities below, no interference should be called for by the High Court – thus, there was no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal – Decided against Revenue.
|