9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king the day-to-day normal transactions. Otherwise it would be very difficult for anybody to run its business. In the present cases, the amounts have been given and repaid in the normal course of assessee's business and all these transactions are bona fide. Therefore, penalty u/s 271E is not attracted in both the cases. If at all there is any fault on the part of the assessees, the same is only of technical nature and no penalty is leviable for such technical or venial default. The Revenue has failed to establish that the assessees were guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of statutory obligations. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had a current account with them. It was submitted that there was neither any acceptance of loan or deposit nor was there any repayment of such loans or deposits. Hence, there was no violation of the provisions of s. 269T of the Act. However, the Dy. CIT was riot satisfied with the explanation given by the assessees as he was of the view that the amounts exceeding Rs. 20,000 have been repaid in violation of provisions of s. 269T. Accordingly, he levied a penalty of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 52,000 equal to the amount of loans/deposits in both the cases. 3. Being aggrieved, both the assessees carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions which were made before the AO. It was submitted that there was a current accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 271D. However, these proceedings were dropped in both the cases. He drew our attention to the respective pages of paper book, i.e., pp. 13 and 17 which are copies of the orders of Dy. CIT dropping the proceedings initiated under s. 271D. Thus, he submitted that the CIT(A) had rightly cancelled the penalties imposed under s. 271E of the Act. 6. We have heard both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. We have also examined the facts, evidence and material placed on record and referred to the respective pages of the paper book to which our attention has been drawn. The fact that Shri Narayan Singh had current account with both the companies is not in dispute. It is also a fact that as and when mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s any fault on the part of the assessees, the same is only of technical nature and no penalty is leviable for such technical or venial default. The Revenue has failed to establish that the assessees were guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of statutory obligations. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the impugned penalty in both the cases. The orders of CIT(A) do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
