9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repayment were entered in the books of the assessee and the figure involved was meagre and that the same was incurred only for meeting the sudden demand of overdraft account. – Tribunal found that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is a well reasoned one and the same does not suffer from any infirmity requiring any interference - We hold that there is no reason whatsoever to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it filed returns for the assessment year 1989-90. The Assessing Officer while processing the returns, noticed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T by accepting cash loans exceeding Rs. 20,000 and hence levied penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against such levy of penalty the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under sections 271D and 271E cannot be imposed for violation of sections 269SS and 269T?" A similar question arose before the Delhi High Court and while answering the question by its judgment reported in CIT v. Parma Nand [2004] 266 ITR 255, after extracting the relevant portions from the order of the Tribunal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding and repayment and that both the transactions were entered in the books of the assessee and the figure involved was also meagre and that the same was incurred only for meeting the sudden demand of overdraft account, found that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is a well reasoned one and the same does not suffer from any infirmity requiring any interference. The said finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
