Sh. Tarun Mohindroo, Contractor, Mandi V. Addl. CIT, Mandi

ITA 1006/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51484 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R P THAKUR
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1006/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI TARUN MOHINDROO, V ADDL. CIT CONTRACTOR, 189/1, CIRCLE, MANDI JAWAHAR NAGAR, (H.P.) MANDI. PAN: ABOPM-0755F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.P.THAKUR RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 30.04.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271E OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SO THE PENALTY OF RS.55000/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY IGNORING THE FINDING OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT CALCULATION OF PENALTY WAS WRONGLY DONE BY LD. AO. 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI TARUN MO HINDROO, GOVT. CONTRACTOR, R/O HOUSE NO. 189/1, JAWAHAR NAGAR, MAN DI DISTT.MANDI (H.P) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT THERE WAS A LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE STANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S BEHL MOTORS. A PERUSAL OF THIS ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT IT WAS AN ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO VEHICLE EXPENSES INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE. M/S BEHL MOTORS IS AUTHORIZED DEALER OF E ICHER VEHICLE. THE RELEVANT BILLS/VOUCHERS OF SAID EXPENSES WERE VERIF IED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WERE FOUND IN ORDER. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SOME CASH ENTRIES OF CREDIT AND DEBIT IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WHICH WERE IN ROUND FIGURES AND WERE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER ENTRIES OF REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE ADDL.CIT LEVIED PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2008. THE RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART O F THE ORDER OF THE ADDL.CIT PASSED U/S 271E READ WITH SECTION 269D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, DATED 29.09.2008, IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME: THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROP ERLY ANALYZED AND FOUND TO BE INCORRECT AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THESE ENTRIES PERTAIN ED TO THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO REPAIR OF VEHICLE UNDER WA RRANTY. THE EXPLANATION FURTHERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VAGUE AND MISLEADING. IT IS ALSO INCORRECT TO STATE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE O F LOAN. THE VERY NATURE OF CASH ENTRIES OF RECEIPT AND REPA YMENT THEREOF IS AN EVIDENCE IN ITSELF FOR WHICH NO OTHER WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED. IN THIS C ASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT LOAN ACCOUNT WAS CAMOUFLAGED WITH NORM AL ACCOUNTS HAVING REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER PARTY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A TECHNICAL MISTAKE AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T DO NOT A TTRACT 3 SINCE THERE WAS NOT BOGUS TRANSACTIONS, IS THEREFOR E NOT TENABLE. THE VERY INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION IS TO PROHIBIT ANY SUCH TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETH ER THE TRANSACTION WAS BOGUS OR OTHERWISE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT INITIATE D AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NO RELEVANCE SIN CE THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS INDEPENDENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FIND IT A FIT CASE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF 271E OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT,1961 FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT . HENCE, A PENALTY OF RS.55,000/- WHICH IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S BEHL MOTORS, IS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE VIOLATION. 4. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALT Y BY THE ADDL.CIT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS CONTENTIONS. FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THE RIVAL PLEAS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE UNDERS IGNED. THE CASES CITED AS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS WITH TH E PRESENT CASE. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 271E FOR VI OLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT WHICH PROHIBI TS ANY PERSON FROM REPAYMENT OF LOAN/DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THA N BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/-. THE APPELLANTS PLEA THAT THESE ENTRIES RELATE TO REPAI R OF VEHICLES UNDER WARRANTY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME. THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271E IS HELD AS JUSTIFIED FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE APPELLAN T FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, RELEVANT DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS APT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271E OF THE ACT : IF A PERSON REPAYS ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT REFERRED T O IN SECTION 269T OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIO NS OF THAT SECTION, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF PENAL TY, A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT SO REPAI D. 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE THA T THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION DOES NOT FALL U/S 269E OF THE ACT DESPI TE AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES INCLUDING BY THE BENCH. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS CAST ON HIM. CONSEQUE NTLY, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS INTO REALM OF BARE ASSERTION, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENC E. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY, FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. 7. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPT.,2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 TH SEPT.,2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH