9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2025 (6) TMI 257 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - cash received from the Directors/ shareholders as share application money - assessee has made the impugned transaction in violation of provisions of Section 269SS - AO observed that there are huge cash deposits as reflected in the bank statement furnished by the assessee - assessee submitted that the cash has been received from Promoters/Directors of the company during the F.Y 2011-12 as share application money - assessee company is a public limited company engaged in the running Hotel and its shares are listed on a stock exchange HELD THAT - Hon ble High Court in M/s Eqbal Inn Hotels Ltd 2015 (12) TMI 1074 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has referred to Rule 2(b) of the Companies Rules 2014 which interalia provides that deposit doesn t include any amount received by way of subscription to any shares and any amount received pending allotment of shares and has held that the amount received by the assessee towards share application money would not fall under loan or deposits u/s 269SS of the Act and consequently the penalty u/s 271D was not leviable. The said decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court thus supports the case of the assessee and has rightly been followed by the ld CIT(A) wherein he has rejected the reclassification of share application money as loans/deposits as so done by the Add.CIT. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue as to the nature of disputes pending before SEBI and any findings/orders so passed by SEBI and more so any bearing thereof on the issue of receipt of share application money by the assessee company. As far as matter before the Company Law Board is concerned as we have noted above it is only the issue and allotment of shares that has been directed to be kept in abeyance and the said directions have been followed by the assessee company as the amount so received as share application money continued to be shown and reflected as share application money pending allotment at the end of the financial year. The fact that issue and allotment of shares has been directed to be kept in abeyance cannot be read and understood and more so empower the Revenue authorities in context of taxing statue and more so penalty proceedings which have to be construed strictly to reclassify the amount received initially as share application money as loans/deposits where no such reclassification was undertaken during the regular assessment proceedings and the transactions so undertaken was duly accepted by the AO after proper enquiry as we have noted earlier. In so far as the decision in case of CIT Chennai vs Object Frontier Software (P) ltd 2016 (9) TMI 1639 - SC ORDER we find that Hon ble Supreme Court has admitted an SLP against the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court and mere admittance of an SLP doesn t support the case of the Revenue. The decision of Hon ble Jharkhand High Court in case of Bhalotia Engineering Works 2004 (8) TMI 66 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT has been considered in case of M/s Eqbal Inn Hotel 2015 (12) TMI 1074 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein it has held that there are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Jharkhand High Court and bowing to the wisdom of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court which binds all the authorities including this Tribunal under its jurisdiction the said decision doesn t support the case of the Revenue Thus we find that there is no material and justifiable basis to reclassify the share application money as loans/deposits and the amount received by the assessee towards share application money would not fall under loan or deposits u/s 269SS of the Act and consequently the penalty u/s 271D was not leviable. We accordingly confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) who has rightly set-aside the order of the Add.CIT and has directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act. Assessee 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:
The Revenue relied on:
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:
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.
|
