High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd.
Section 269SS, 271D, 273B
Asst. Year 2001-02
Adarsh Kumar Goel & Gurdev Singh, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 361 of 2009
22nd October, 2009
Counsel appeared : Vivek Sethi, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. :
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dt. 31st Dec., 2008, of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in ITA No. 388/Asr/2008, for the asst. yr. 2001-02, proposing to raise the following question of law :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (having violated the provision of s. 269SS of the Act) the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under s. 271D of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
2. The AO initiated proceedings for alleged violation of s. 269SS of the Act inasmuch as the assessee accepted share application money being Rs. 20,000 in cash. Thereafter, penalty was imposed. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the stand of the assessee that the amount received was not loan or deposit and no interest was payable. It was further held that the transaction was bona fide and default was of technical nature and in any case, the amount was received from the public and not from directors or shareholders. The Tribunal affirmed the said view. Reliance was placed on following judgments : (i) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. Kharaiti Lal & Co. (2004) 270 ITR 445 (P&H); (iii) CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2007) 211 CTR (Raj) 579 : (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj); (iv) CIT vs. Lakshmi Trust Co. (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad); (v) CIT vs. Indore Plastics (P) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 163 (MP); vi) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad); and (vii) CIT vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. (1988) 70 CTR (SC) 94 : (1988) 172 ITR 321 (SC). The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 196CTR (Jharkhand) 619 : (2005) 275 ITR 399 (Jharkhand) was held to be distinguishable. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The only point which has been pressed is that the amount should have been held to be loan or deposit, as held in Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (Jharkhand). We do not find any merit in the contention raised. The finding to the effect that the transaction was bona fide and the default was of technical nature which did not justify levy of penalty is not shown to be, in any manner, perverse or unreasonable. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 326 ITR 31]
