JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), is directed against the order, dated May 16, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”), in I. T. A. No. 238/Delhi of 2002, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. According to the Revenue, the said order involves the following substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Act by holding that the appellant did not contravene the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act ?
2. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse on both law and merits ?”
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respon-dent-assessed, referred to as the “special purpose vehicle”, was promoted by one Infrastructure Leasing and Finance Services Ltd. (for short, the “IL & FS”), with 30 per cent. holding, to construct and operate a bridge on the river Yamuna on a build, own, operate and transfer basis. For undertaking the said project the assessed had to make a payment of Rs. 4.85 crores to the Government of Delhi in relation to the acquisition of land for the said project.
3. While completing the assessment of the assessed for the assessment year 1998-99, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act as he was of the view that the assessed had violated the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act because the payment of Rs. 4.85 crores to the Delhi Government was not made in the manner prescribed in Section 269SS of the Act. We may note at this stage itself that the said payment had in fact been made by IL & FS vide account payee cheque to the Delhi Government and the amount was debited to the account of the assessed in its books of account.
4. Not being satisfied with the reply filed by the assessed to the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 4.85 crores under Section 271D of the Act on the assessed for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act.
5. Aggrieved, the assessed preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but without any success. The assessed carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had deleted the said penalty. While holding that the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act were not attracted, the Tribunal has noticed that: (i) in the instant case, the transaction was by an account payee cheque, (ii) no payment on account was made in cash either by the assessed or on its behalf, (iii) no loan was accepted by the assessed in cash, and (iv) the payment of Rs. 4.85 crores made by the assessed through IL & FS, which holds more than 30 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the assessed, by journal entry in the books of account of the assessed by crediting the account of IL & FS.
6. Having regard to the aforenoted findings, which are essentially findings of fact, we are in complete agreement with the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 269SS were not attracted on the facts of the case. Admittedly, neither the assessed nor IL & FS had made any payment in cash. The order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.
7. We accordingly decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.