COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR Vs. AMBE FINLEASES LIMITED, NEW DELHI
LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-416
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 12,2017

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Kanpur Appellant
VERSUS
Ambe Finleases Limited, New Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the department and Shri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent.
(2.) This appeal has been filed by the department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 02.03.2005 for the assessment year 1998-1999. The questions of law sought to be answered are as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty amounting to Rs.1,95,50,000/- imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Kanpur, without properly appreciating the fact that after the amendment to section 269T w.e..f 01.06.2002, no such intention of the legislature was there to make a distinction between loan and deposit and the said amendment is clarifactory in nature and has been made to remove any doubts in this regard that both loan as well as deposits are covered by the ambit of section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961? " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty amounting to Rs.1,95,50,000/- imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Kanpur ignoring the fact that the violation of section 269T of the Act, by the assessee, is not mere venial or techincal but a well thought out manipulation after the end of the relevant financial year to manipulate income of group concern and evade tax thereon?
(3.) The two things are clear. One that the assessee had taken a loan by way of a transfer entries and not by way of a cash. So far as the issue with regard to the applicability of Section 269T of the Act is concerned, the Tribunal while considering the same has relied on a decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT wherein the term 'loan' and 'deposit' were examined and the conclusion was that the term 'loan' and 'deposit'? are not interchangeable and therefore, the assessee would not cover under the provisions of Section 269T of the Act for the year under consideration.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.