2013 (12) TMI 1545 - HC - Income Tax

Penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E - Held that - It appears that in the instant case the transaction in question was not cash transaction. It was merely book entries.When that it so then there is no violation of Section 269SS/269T of the Act. No addition is made in quantum appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Section 269SS/269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E of the Act.
3. Appeal against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1994-95.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a violation of Section 269SS/269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E were levied by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the penalties were later cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT-A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Department filed an appeal challenging this decision. The AO confirmed that the transaction in question did not involve cash but was merely book entries. The CIT(A) obtained a report from the AO, which confirmed the absence of cash involvement, indicating only adjustment entries. As such, it was concluded that there was no violation of Section 269SS/269T, and no addition was made in the quantum appeal.

2. Upon considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the judges found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The transaction was clarified to be non-cash, with only adjustment entries involved. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed at the admission stage, affirming the Tribunal's decision and the reasons provided therein.

3. The appeal was filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1994-95. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties imposed under Sections 271-D and 271-E was upheld based on the nature of the transaction as non-cash and involving only book entries. The judges, after hearing arguments from both parties and examining the record, sustained the Tribunal's order, dismissing the Department's appeal.