Facts of the
Case
- The assessee had recorded loan-related entries of ₹33,75,842 from
M/s Shakuntla Export House Pvt. Ltd. and ₹20,00,000 relating to K.N.
Bhalla.
- The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's contention that the
transactions were merely book entries and did not involve actual transfer
of funds.
- It was held by the Assessing Officer that such entries fell within
the scope of Section 269SS, resulting in a penalty of ₹53,75,840 under
Section 271D.
- During appellate proceedings, one entry was remanded for fresh
examination while another penalty was sustained.
- Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalties holding that journal entries without transfer of money do not amount to acceptance of loans or deposits.
Issues
Involved
- Whether mere journal/book adjustment entries without actual
transfer of money constitute acceptance of loan or deposit under Section
269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
- Whether penalty under Section 271D can be imposed where no cash
transaction has taken place?
- Whether transfer entries between ledger accounts amount to
acceptance of a fresh loan or deposit?
Petitioner’s
Arguments (Revenue)
The Revenue argued that:
- Book entries and journal adjustments are covered within the scope
of Section 269SS.
- The transactions represented acceptance of loans or deposits in a
manner not permitted by law.
- Transfer of liabilities from one account to another effectively
amounted to acceptance of a loan.
- Therefore, penalty under Section 271D was rightly imposed.
Respondent’s
Arguments (Assessee)
The assessee contended that:
- The entries represented mere accounting adjustments and no funds
were actually transferred.
- The transactions were only journal entries and did not involve
receipt of money.
- Substitution of one account for another was merely a transfer entry
and did not create a fresh liability.
- Since there was no actual acceptance of money, Section 269SS was
not attracted.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Delhi High Court held that:
- The issue was already covered by earlier judicial precedents.
- The Explanation to Section 269SS applies to acceptance of
"loan or deposit of money" and not to mere accounting entries.
- Journal entries or book adjustments without actual movement of
funds cannot be treated as receipt of loan or deposit.
- Since there was no cash transaction or transfer of money, there was
no violation of Section 269SS.
- Consequently, penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained.
- The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue.
The appeals filed by the Revenue were accordingly
disposed of.
Important
Clarification
The Court clarified that:
- Mere journal entries or transfer entries are not equivalent to
receipt of money.
- Sections 269SS and 271D become applicable only when there is an
actual transaction involving loan or deposit of money.
- Accounting adjustments without movement of funds do not
automatically trigger penal consequences.
- The decision followed established principles laid down in:
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ruchika Commercials and Investment
Pvt. Ltd.
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
- Commissioner of Income Tax-VI v. Worldwide Townships Project Ltd.
Sections
Involved
- Section 260A – Appeal to High Court
- Section 269SS – Mode of taking or accepting certain loans and
deposits
- Section 271D – Penalty for failure to comply with Section 269SS
- Explanation to Section 269SS
Link to download the order -
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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment