| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 4954 (Chd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271D and 271E
Where the amount received by assessee from the commission agent was against the sale of crops so it was neither the loan nor the deposit, therefore the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable and as such penalty levied by the AO under sections 271D and 271E was not justified, accordingly the same was deleted.
|
Penalty under sections 271D and 271E - Contravention of sections 269SS and 269T - Cash received by assessee from the Commission Agent against the crops -
AO levied penalty under section 271D on the allegation that assessee had accepted cash loan, thereby violated section 269SS. Further, AO also levied penalty under section 27IE as assessee had made repayment of the amount received by him against the crop from commission agent in cash. Assessee contended that the amount received by assessee was an advance against the agricultural crops which were to be sold through the Commission Agent, therefore, the provisions of section 269SS were not applicable, since it was neither loan nor a deposit taken by the assessee. He further contended that the AO himself accepted that assessee was an agriculturist and accepted the returned income shown by him therefore, the penalty under section 271D was not leviable. Held: Since the amount received by assessee from the Commission Agent was against the crops, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had received or paid amounts in cash as a deposit or loan rather the amounts received in cash were against the agricultural crops, therefore, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable. Accordingly, penalty under sections 271D and 271E could not be levied.
REFERRED : Pr. CIT v. M/s. Tehal Singh Khara & Sons (2018) 400 ITR 0243 (P&H) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 2067 (P&H-HC), CIT v. Shri Manohar Lal Thakral (2018) 93 taxmann.com 156 (P&H) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2376 (P&H-HC), CIT v. Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 0328 (Guj) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1633 (Guj-HC), CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0846 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Hissaria Brothers (2007) 291 ITR 244 (Raj) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0413 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1251 (Mad-HC), CIT v. Saini Medical Store (2005) 277 ITR 420 (P&H) : 2005 TaxPub(DT) 1415 (P&H-HC), Mohanjeet Singh v. JCIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 335 (Chd-Trib) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3070 (Chd-Trib), Baldev Singh, Prop. M/s. Guru Nanak Jewellers v. Addl. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 212 (Chd-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2520 (Chd-Trib), ITO v. M/s. Shiv Enterprise [ITA No.2911/Ahd/2009, dt. 14-10-2011], ITO v. Bharadiya Trading Co. (2003) 85 ITD 42 (Pune-Trib) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0185 (Pune-Trib), Harpal Singh Jaswant Singh v. ITO (1995) 82 Taxman 81 (Asr-Trib) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0251 (Asr-Trib)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|