Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Reimbursement of Expenses not covered by Section 269SS or 269T

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2012 taxguru.in 1702
Case Name
ITO V/s. VS Hostel (Gujarat High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement


HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Baroda

Versus

VS Hostel

Tax Appeal Nos. 1463 & 1466 of 2011

September 18, 2012

ORDER

Harsha Devani, J.

Both these appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) have been filed by the revenue against the common order dated 10.6.11 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). Before the Tribunal two separate orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling penalties under section 271D and 271E of the Act were subject matter of challenge. Since common facts are involved in both these appeals and the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned order by proposing the following questions:

Tax Appeal No.1463 of 2011

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), who deleted the entire penalty of Rs.24,52,740/- levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee to indulge into cash transactions in violation of Section 269SS of the Act ?”

Tax Appeal No.1466 of 2011

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) who deleted the entire penalty of Rs.30,92,911/- levied under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee to indulge into cash transactions in violation of Section 269T of the Act?”

3. The assessment year is 2004-2005. In the year under consideration, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax noticed that the assessee had accepted and repaid the following amounts of loans/deposits otherwise than by cross-cheques/drafts in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act:

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.