TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated u/s 271D, with respect to violation of the provisions contained under Section 269SS. Analysed on the basis of the principle remaining settled as above, contention raised all along by the assessee is that it was due to ignorance of the provisions or due to lack of banking facilities in the area etc; cannot be accepted. Contention that both the parties to the transaction were having agricultural income and therefore the transaction will fall within the purview of the 2nd proviso to Section 269SS, cannot also be accepted, because the admitted case itself is that the appellant is a company doing finance business of money lending and receiving deposits. Appellant has raised a contention that the assessee will fall within the exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer found that, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year concerned, the assessee had conducted finance business by violating the provisions contained in Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act by accepting deposits in cash from various clients, exceeding the sum of ₹ 20,000/-. On the recommendation of the Assessing Authority, penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act was initiated by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Alappuzha Range. To a notice proposing imposition of penalty, the appellant replied that it is a charitable organisation rendering social services to the weaker section of the society, having no income chargeable to tax under provisions of the Act. It is stated that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Appellate Tribunal in the first round of second appeal, which was disposed of through Annexure F order dated 31st July 2013. In an Income Tax Appeal filed challenging the said order before this court, in ITA No.19/2014, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. Before this court it was contended based on the decision reported in K.V. George v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (42) Taxman.com 261 (Kerala)] that the authorities have failed to consider the aspect of 'reasonable cause' contemplated under Section 273B, on the factual scenario that there existed no banking facility in the locality and most of the depositors are pensioners and agriculturists. It was contended that there could be mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use, since the matter is remitted back, no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to explain such transactions. Therefore the officer was directed to accept the explanation if any offered by the assessee. 4.After remand of the matter, the original authority had considered the issue afresh. Having found that the assessee could not establish any 'reasonable cause' with respect of acceptance of the deposits in cash, exceeding the permissible limit, imposition of the penalty was re-affirmed. However, after verification of each transactions of deposit, the amount of penalty was re-worked to ₹ 4,74,15,591/-. The appellant challenged the fresh order in appeal before the first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra), after referring to a catena of decisions like the Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.Shamsudin [2011(1) KLT online 1211], K.V.George v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kumari A.B.Santhi [2002 (2) KLT Online 1007 (SC)], NSS Karayogam v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014(2) KLT Online 1208] and Grihalakshmi Vision v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (4) KLT SN 88] and Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur v.Al Ameen Educational Trust [2018 (1) KLT Online 3133] held that the 'reasonable cause' contemplated under Section 273B should be a reasonable cause as to why or what was the reason which compelled the assessee to accept the loans or deposit in cash. In other wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Regulation Act or not even to the effect that the appellant is a 'non-banking financing company' having authorisation from the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore the said contention also cannot be accepted. 9. It is evident from the Annexure attached to the revised order of the original authority, dated 27.6.2014 that, all the transactions pertaining to the year concerned is listed and the total amount was computed as ₹ 4,74,15,591/-. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the transaction listed under the Annexure includes various amounts which are below the limit of ₹ 20,000/-. If there is any error occurred in the computation of the quantum of penalty, it will be left open to the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
