9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing question for our consideration. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT (A) in deleting the penalty of ₹ 1,14,60,017/- levied u/s. 271D of the Act.? Counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had breached the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tribunal therefore erred in deleting the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and question was merely because payments were made by the sister concern on behalf of assessee, there can be no violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS of the Act. We would have been persuaded to examine this question more closely but for the fact that from the record certain admitted facts emerged which can be stated to be sufficient for not insisting of penalty under Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebiting the concerned accounts in one book and crediting the same in another book. In light of the above facts, we may peruse the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bombay Conductors Electricals Ltd., reported in 328 ITR 301 . In the said decision, High Court was pleased to confirm the deletion of the penalty under Section 271D of the Act against assessee making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the transactions were made for defiance of the provisions. It is not even the case of the revenue that assessee had indulged in tax planning or tax evasion. We further find that the assessee was compelled to make certain book entries to tide over its financial crises particularly in light of the fact that due to its financial difficulties, it was unable to pay its creditors and was also not in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
