Facts of the Case:

The assesse, Maharaj Education Trust, was faced with adverse orders from the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and needed to satisfy a decree. The Trustee, Dr. P. Mahalingam, arranged funds from Ayush Commercial Private Limited through two cheques/demand drafts totaling Rs. 75 lakhs (Rs. 50 lakhs + Rs. 25 lakhs). The payment in cash helped the trust avoid execution proceedings, and the Trust repaid Ayush Commercial Private Limited in cash.

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271E, alleging violation of Section 269T due to the cash payments. The assesse’s appeal succeeded before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who set aside the penalty. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which upheld the appellate order.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether cash payments made to satisfy a DRT decree violated Section 269T.
  2. Whether the Revenue could levy a penalty under Section 271E for such payments.
  3. Determining if there was any diversion of funds that could trigger penalty provisions.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue):

  • Cash payments clearly violated Section 269T.
  • There was no record to suggest that payments were made solely to satisfy the DRT decree.
  • The penalty under Section 271E was justified for non-compliance with mandatory provisions.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee – Maharaj Education Trust):

  • Payments were made from funds borrowed temporarily and returned immediately.
  • The cash payment was a temporary measure to satisfy the DRT decree, not for evading tax provisions.
  • There was no element of penalty involved as the cash was returned and accounted properly.

Court Order / Findings:

The Delhi High Court (Division Bench – Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice R.V. Easwar) upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT:

  • Payment made to DRT from borrowed funds was in cash due to exigency.
  • The subsequent repayment to Ayush Commercial Private Limited ensured there was no misuse.
  • There was no element of penalty under Section 271E since Section 273B provisions applied, providing reasonable cause for non-compliance.
  • Revenue’s appeal was dismissed; no substantial question of law arose.

Key Observation:

“We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) … the case is covered u/s 273B of the IT Act.”

Important Clarifications:

  • Section 269T prohibits receiving cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 for certain transactions.
  • Section 271E imposes penalty for contraventions of Section 269T.
  • Section 273B provides relief from penalty where there is reasonable cause for non-compliance.
  • Temporary borrowing and repayment in such exigencies can be considered reasonable cause.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 269T of the Income Tax Act
  • Section 271E of the Income Tax Act
  • Section 273B of the Income Tax Act


Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2012:DHC:7984-DB/SRB31102012ITA5362012_144816.pdf 

Disclaimer 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.