- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Idhayam Publications Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from a penalty imposed on M/s. Idhayam Publications Private Limited for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had accepted a cash loan of Rs. 2,94,000 from M/s. Manian Creations, a sister concern, in alleged violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, penal proceedings were initiated under section 271D, and a penalty of Rs. 2,94,000 was levied. The assessee challenged the penalty, contending the transaction was a current account, not a loan or deposit. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) referred to a Madras High Court judgment declaring section 269SS unconstitutional and deleted the penalty. The Revenue appealed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the transaction did not amount to a loan or advance and upheld the deletion of the penalty. The Revenue then filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act before the Madras High Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty levied under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, despite the Supreme Court holding that section 269SS is constitutionally valid?
Arguments of the Parties
Revenue's Arguments
- The penalty under section 271D was rightly levied as the assessee accepted a cash loan in violation of section 269SS.
- The Supreme Court in Asstt. Director Of Inspection Investigation v. A.B Shanthi upheld the constitutional validity of section 269SS, thus the penalty should stand.
Assessee's Arguments
- The transaction was a current account between the assessee and Mr. S.V.S Manian, a director and proprietor of the sister concern, not a loan or deposit.
- The Companies Act and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 exclude amounts received from directors or shareholders of a private limited company from the definition of deposits.
- No interest was charged on the transaction, further supporting it being a current account and not a loan or deposit.
- Therefore, there was no violation of section 269SS, and the penalty under section 271D should be deleted.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kumari A.B Shanthi (alias) Vennira Adai Nirmala v. Assistant Director of Inspection, Investigation, [1992] 197 ITR 330 (Madras High Court) | Declared section 269SS unconstitutional. | Referred by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to support deletion of penalty. |
| Asstt. Director Of Inspection Investigation v. A.B Shanthi, [2002] 255 ITR 258 (Supreme Court) | Upheld constitutional validity of section 269SS. | Invoked by Revenue to challenge deletion of penalty; court acknowledged but found transaction not to be a loan or deposit. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the nature of the transaction between the assessee and Mr. S.V.S Manian, noting that he was a director and the transaction was maintained as a current account with deposits and withdrawals. The court emphasized that the Revenue bears the burden to prove the amount received was a loan or deposit within the meaning of section 269SS. The court observed that the transaction was recorded as an "unsecured loan from directors" in the balance-sheet but relied on the Companies Act and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, which exclude amounts received from directors or shareholders of a private limited company from the definition of deposits. Since no interest was charged and the transaction was current account in nature, the court concluded it did not constitute a loan or deposit attracting section 269SS. Consequently, there was no violation warranting penalty under section 271D. The court found no error in the Tribunal’s order deleting the penalty and held that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration.
Holding and Implications
The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the penalty levied under section 271D for alleged violation of section 269SS is set aside as the transaction did not constitute a loan or deposit. The court did not set any new precedent but affirmed the Tribunal’s factual and legal conclusion based on the nature of the transaction and applicable statutory provisions. No costs were awarded.
P.P.S Janarthana Raja, J.:— The present appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A Nos. 1187.Mds/1998 dated July 13, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, raising the following formulated substantial question of law.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, even though the Supreme Court held that section 269SS is constitutionally valid in law?”
2. The assessee is running a company in the name of M/s. Idhayam Publications Private Limited for publication of books. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. In the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had accepted a cash loan of Rs. 2,94,000 from M/s. Manian Creations, a sister concern, in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. With the above information, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax initiated penal proceedings under section 271D and issued a show-cause notice dated September 19, 1997, to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a letter dated September 27, 1997, stating that the transaction between the assessee and Mr. S.V.S Manian, Proprietor of Manian Creation, was current account in nature and was not a loan or deposit. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the contention and was of the view that there was a clear violation of the provisions of section 271D and levied a penalty of Rs. 2,94,000 under section 271D of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that even though there was reasonable cause to hold that there was a violation of the provision under section 269SS which attracted penalty under section 271D, he has referred the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Kumari A.B Shanthi (alias) Vennira Adai Nirmala v. Assistant Director of Inspection, Investigation reported in [1992] 197 ITR 330, which declared that section 269SS is unconstitutional. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that the Supreme Court (Asstt. Director Of Inspection Investigation v. A.B Shanthi, [2002] 255 ITR 258 (SC)) has reversed the decision of the Madras High Court judgment in [1992] 197 ITR 330 and held that section 269SS is constitutionally valid and therefore the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer ought to be considered. The Tribunal, on hearing the arguments, held that, on the merits, the transaction does not fall within the meaning of loan or advance and hence there is no violation of section 269SS.
4. We heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Revenue. We have perused the materials available in record. Admittedly Mr. S.V.S Manian was one of the directors. Therefore the order of the lower authority clearly shows that there was a running current account in the books of account of the assessee in the name of Mr. S.V.S Manian. Mr. S.V.S Manian used to pay the money in the current account and used to withdraw the money also from the current account. The Revenue should establish that what was received by the assessee is a loan or deposit within the meaning of section 269SS. The deposit and the withdrawal of the money from the current account could not be considered as a loan or advance. Further it was also found that the assessee filed a letter dated September 29, 1997, and in that letter he explained that the amount received from Mr. S.V.S Manian had been shown as “unsecured loan from directors” in the balance-sheet. As per the Companies Act, under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, under rule 2(b)(ix), deposit does not include any amount received from a director or a shareholder of a private limited company. Therefore the transaction between the appellant and the director cum shareholder is not a loan or deposit and it is only a current account in nature and no interest is being charged for the above transaction.
5. In the foregoing conclusions, we are of the view that since the said transaction does not fall within the meaning of loan or advance, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no interference. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly, we dismiss the above tax case. No costs.
Alert