Facts of the
Case
- The Revenue alleged that the respondent assessee had accepted an
unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 8,52,71,500 from M/s Oswal Agro Mills
Ltd., otherwise than through account payee cheque or account payee bank
draft.
- M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. did not make any payment directly to the
respondent assessee. Instead, it discharged liabilities owed by the
respondent assessee to its creditors.
- Consequently, accounting entries were made in the books of accounts
recognizing that the respondent assessee became liable to repay the amount
to M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
- The transactions were intended to facilitate acquisition of shares
of group companies and were initially reflected as investments.
- The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271D alleging violation of Section 269SS. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the penalty. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty.
Issues
Involved
- Whether journal entries recording liabilities without actual
receipt of cash amount to acceptance of loans or deposits under Section
269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Whether penalty under Section 271D can be imposed where no cash transaction exists and entries are merely passed in books of accounts.
Petitioner’s
Arguments (Revenue)
- The Revenue contended that the respondent assessee had accepted
unsecured loans of Rs. 8,52,71,500 in violation of Section 269SS.
- It was argued that since the amount had not been received through
account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, statutory requirements
under Section 269SS stood violated.
- Accordingly, penalty under Section 271D was claimed to be validly
imposed.
Respondent’s
Arguments (Assessee)
- The respondent submitted that no money was received by it directly
from M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
- It was argued that the alleged loan transaction merely involved
book entries and accounting adjustments.
- The respondent contended that payments were made directly to
third-party creditors and therefore there was no cash movement or transfer
of money to the assessee.
- Since there was no acceptance of loan or deposit in the manner
contemplated under Section 269SS, no penalty under Section 271D could be
sustained.
Court
Findings / Order
The High Court upheld the decision of the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Court held that:
- Mere journal entries in books of accounts do not amount to receipt
of loans or deposits under Section 269SS.
- There was no actual payment of money or cash to the assessee.
- M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. only discharged liabilities of
third-party creditors on behalf of the assessee.
- The transactions were genuine and their bona fide nature was never
disputed by the Revenue.
- Since there was no violation of Section 269SS, penalty under
Section 271D was not sustainable.
The substantial question of law was answered in
favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Important
Clarification
The Court clarified that a distinction exists
between:
- Actual acceptance of loan or deposit involving transfer of money;
and
- Mere accounting entries creating liabilities through journal
adjustments.
Journal entries by themselves do not constitute a
loan or deposit under Section 269SS if there is no actual cash movement or
receipt of funds by the assessee.
Sections
Involved
- Section 260A – Appeal to High Court
- Section 269SS – Mode of Taking or Accepting Certain Loans,
Deposits, or Specified Sums
- Section 271D – Penalty for Failure to Comply with 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