Facts of the Case

The present matter arose from four appeals preferred by the Revenue against a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Assessment Years 2003–04 and 2004–05. The dispute pertained to the deletion of penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer on the assessee under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The penalties were levied on account of alleged violation of statutory provisions relating to acceptance and repayment of certain transactions. The ITAT, while deleting the penalties, relied upon earlier judicial precedents involving identical issues concerning a group concern of the respondent.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
  2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
  3. Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration before the High Court?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue/Appellant)

  • The Revenue challenged the order of the ITAT deleting the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer.
  • It was contended that the assessee had contravened the statutory provisions attracting penal consequences under Sections 271D and 271E.
  • The Revenue sought restoration of the penalty orders on the ground that the ITAT had erred in granting relief.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The respondent supported the order of the ITAT and argued that the issue was no longer res integra.
  • Reliance was placed upon earlier orders of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court involving identical facts and similar questions concerning a group entity, namely Sahara Indian Financial Corporation Ltd.
  • It was submitted that in view of settled law, no penalty could be sustained.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court observed that the ITAT had rightly relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court dated 20 September 2012, wherein identical questions concerning deletion of penalty under Sections 271D and 271E had been examined and upheld.

The Court held that the controversy was squarely covered by the earlier binding precedent and therefore no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Accordingly, all four appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without any order as to costs.

important Clarification

The judgment reiterates that where the issue involved is already covered by an earlier decision of the jurisdictional High Court on identical facts, the Revenue cannot reopen the same controversy unless a distinguishable question of law arises.

The Court emphasized judicial consistency in matters concerning penalty under Sections 271D and 271E.

Sections Involved

  • Section 271D, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty for failure to comply with Section 269SS
  • Section 271E, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty for failure to comply with Section 269T
  • Section 269SS, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Mode of taking or accepting certain loans/deposit
  • Section 269T, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Mode of repayment of certain loans/deposits 

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:8935-DB/SMD30082017ITA5572017_162417.pdf

Bottom of FormDisclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.