9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2008. 2. This appeal by assessee is barred by limitation by 298 days and assessee has filed condonation petition along with medical certificate stating the reason that assessee is chronically ill as he was having high diabetes and hypertension. He was advised complete rest during the above stated period of 298 days. Even otherwise on merits the assessee has a clear case where penalty u/s. 271D of the Act was levied in spite of circular in favour of assessee. As the assessee has a very strong case and the substantial justice will lose its shine in technical delay. Hence, we are of the view that delay of this appeal be condoned and appeal be admitted. Hence, we admit the appeal and adjudicate the same. 3. The only issue in this appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loans in cash for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-from each of them. These facts are undisputed but before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on CBDT Circular No.572 dated 03.08.1990 reported in (1999) 87 CTR (St.) 1, and stated that this circular has clearly brought out the provision of section 269SS explaining that "for taking or accepting any loan or deposit in excess of Rs. 20,000/-" Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the word in excess of amounts exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Madhukar B. Pawar [2008] 218 CTR 59, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide para 4 considered the issue as under: "4. It is now well settled that circulars issued by CBDT are statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose a burden on the taxpayer higher than what the Act itself, on a true interpretation, envisages. It was observed that the Board has the statutory power under s. 119 to tone down the rigour of the law for the benefit of the assessee by issuing circulars to ensure a proper administration of the fiscal statute. In CST v. Indra Industries [2001] 168 CTR (SC) 50: [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC), the Court further observed that the taxing authority cannot be heard to advance an argument that it is contrary to that interpretation." 5. Considering above, we find that the facts are exactly identical what was before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra) and in each of case cash loan is not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- rather it is exactly Rs. 20,000/-. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
