9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 16.1.13 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Jodhpur dated 14.5.12, for the assessment year 2005-06, cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO), under Section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), has been dismissed. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 269SS and 269T, vide order dated 31.3.11, imposed the penalty upon the assessee of Rs. 13,00,580/- each under Section 271D and 271E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the CIT(A), observing that the AO has not given any finding whatsoever for rejecting the reply of the assessee. The CIT (A) arrived at the finding that there exists a reasonable c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 269SS and 269T and therefore, it cannot escape the liability of penalty under Section 271D and 271E of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for Revenue and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the assessee received certain sums from its employee and members in excess of the limit prescribed under Section 269SS in cash and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide belief that amanat rashi received from its members do not constitute loan or deposit, which is required to be accepted by account payee cheque or draft. 8. It is to be noticed that the AO had not given any finding whatsoever for rejecting the stand taken by the assessee, however, the CIT (A) and ITAT have concurrently found that the assessee, a cooperative society, working in remote area, ig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
