Rajasthan H.C : Whether the amount credited to the account of Ramchander Banarsidass is a deposit or a loan or a trade in transaction ?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench

CIT vs. Govind Kumar

Section 269T

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. & Rajesh Balia, J.

IT Appeal No. 24 of 2000

19th September, 2000

Counsel Appeared 

L.M. Lodha, for the Applicant

JUDGMENT

DR. ar. LAKSHMANAN, C.J. :

Heard Mr. L.M. Lodha, for the Department. This appeal is filed by the Department questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the CIT(A). The question posed for our consideration is whether the amount credited to the account of Ramchander Banarsidass is a deposit or a loan or a trade in transaction ? The CIT, on a detailed consideration of the factual matrix of the matter and also the provisions of s. 269T of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) came to the conclusion that the book entries so made by the respondent with reference to the payment made on its behalf by the other party was at the most a type of accommodation, or loan and not a deposit which otherwise is contemplated by s. 269T. In view of this, the CIT held that there was no justification in treating the respondent to have contravened the provisions of s. 269T which otherwise was really not applicable on account of actual transaction being by way of accommodation in the form of loan and not a deposit. Sec. 269T, specifically refers to the repayment of deposit whereas the provisions of s. 269SS refer to loan or deposit. This itself, as pointed out by the CIT, would indicate that the legislature had kept in view the subtle distinction between loan and deposit while framing the provisions of s. 269T and s. 269SS.The Tribunal on appeal by the ITO confirmed the decision of the CIT. Both the CIT, as well the Tribunal, on consideration of the entire factual circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that it is only a type of loan transaction or a type of accommodation and not a deposit which otherwise is contemplated by s. 269T. When a factual finding is arrived at by the authorities concerned, it is not proper for this Court to reappreciate the same and take a different view. In our opinion there is no justification in treating the transaction in question, as a deposit. The respondent in our opinion, has not contravened the provisions of s. 269T. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

[Citation : 253 ITR 103]

Malcare WordPress Security