• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Delhi ITAT Penalty Order U/S 271E Mechanically Invalid

Delhi ITAT's Order for Devinder Gupta & Sons

Income Tax Penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961 can not be charged mechanically, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently carried.

Assesee Devinder Gupta & Sons, a Hindu Undivided Family, has repaid a portion of a debt to one of its sister companies, M/s. DNB Properties Pvt. Ltd. (DNB), during the year under review. The assessee provided the lender’s confirmation throughout the assessment procedures as the Assessing Officer had requested. The Assessing Officer pointed out that paying back a loan in cash is against Section 269T of the Act’s provisions. As a result, Section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961 was invoked, and a penalty was subsequently issued.

A person cannot return a deposit or loan in any other way than via a bank draft made out to the account payee or through the electronic clearing system of a bank account, according to Section 269T of the Income Tax Act of 1961.

Section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961 states that If someone violates the provisions of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act of 1961 by repaying a loan, deposit, or specified advance, they will be penalized.

Before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, the assessee chose to appeal. However, CIT (A) acknowledged the fine for allegedly violating Section 269T of the Income Tax Act of 1961. Assessee appealed the ruling before ITAT.

According to Mansi Jain, the assessee’s attorney, the lender was a sibling company that the assessee’s Karta managed and controlled. The Assessing Officer has determined that the net payable amount reported as having been received from the lender is real and has approved it during the assessment process.

Recommended: ITAT Delhi Removes Tax Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(c) Over Unspecified Reasons

The decision of the lower authorities was affirmed by Kumar Pranav, Counsel for the Revenue.

The division bench of the ITAT, composed of Chandra Mohan Garg, a judge, and Pradip Kumar Kedia, an accountant, took into account the arguments made by both parties before allowing the appeal filed by the taxpayer and erasing the fine levied by the assessing officer in accordance with section 271E of the Income Tax Act of 1961.

Case TitleDevinder Gupta & Sons Vs CIT
CitationI.T.A. No.5394/DEL/2019
Date17.01.2023
Appellant byMs Mansi Jain
Respondent byShri Kumar Pranav
Delhi ITATRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software