9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Appeal against penalties u/s 271D and u/s 271E upheld by CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1989-90.
Summary: The Assessing Officer imposed penalties of Rs. 2,15,000 u/s 271D and Rs. 3,90,998 u/s 271E, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee explained that the loans accepted in cash were from family members or sister concerns, and repayments were made in cash due to fund shortage. The Assessing Officer found these explanations insufficient and levied the penalties equal to the total transaction amounts. The assessee contended that the Revenue authorities misapplied provisions of s. 269SS and 269T, arguing that certain transactions were not deposits but loan repayments. The Tribunal directed re-examination by the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect. Regarding cash transactions with related parties, the Tribunal upheld the penalties, stating there was no justification for cash dealings when transactions could have been through cheques or drafts. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause for non-compliance with s. 269SS and 269T. The assessee argued that penalties equal to 100% of the transaction amounts were excessive for technical violations. The Tribunal, considering relevant case law, reduced the penalties to 50% of the cash transaction amounts for fairness. In conclusion, the appeals partly succeeded, with directions for fresh computation of cash transactions under s. 269SS and 269T, and imposition of penalties at 50% of the recomputed amounts u/s 271D and u/s 271E. This judgment provides clarity on the application of penalties u/s 271D and u/s 271E, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and fair imposition of penalties based on the circumstances of each case.
|
