9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had accepted cash deposits in contravention of provisions of s. 269SS in the following cases: ------------------------------------------------ SL. Name of the Party Dated Cash Deposit No. ------------------------------------------------ 1. Shri Khubi Lal 16.10.1990 Rs. 25,000 2. Shri Shyam Lal 12.07.1980 Rs. 20,000 3. Shri Gautam Kumar 17.10.1990 Rs. 25,000 Kothari 4. Shri Manohar Lal 14.07.1990 Rs. 20,000 Sukh Lal 5. Shri Shyam Lal 17.07.1990 Rs. 30,000 Devi Lal 6. Shri Manohar Lal 19.07.1990 Rs. 20,000 Bhura Lal 7. Shri Anil Kumar 01.01.1991 Rs. 55,000 8. Shri Prakash Chand Rs. 25,000 Shantilal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that there was in fact a violation of provisions of s. 269SS inasmuch the assessee accepted the above referred nine loans in cash exceeding the specified limit. At the same time, it is relevant to note that the provisions of s. 271D are subject to the provisions of s. 273B which stipulate for the non-imposition of penalty if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for violation or to comply with the relevant provisions. Adverting to the facts of the case, we find that primarily it was argued before the AO that none of the persons had any bank account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statute. This decision has been applied by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Superintending Engineer, Udaipur (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 586 : (2003) 260 ITR 641 (Raj). The learned Authorised Representative has brought to our notice an order passed by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narayan Ram Chhaba vs. ITO Anr. (2005) 97 TTJ (Jd)(TM) 297 : (2005) 96 ITD 163 (Jd)(TM) wherein the penalty imposed under s. 271D, almost on similar facts was deleted. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,40,000 imposed under s. 271D of the Act. His order is, therefore, upheld. 1378/Jp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
