2011 (2) TMI 1544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n appeal against judgment dated 7.11.07 of the Tribunal to the extent the same is against the Revenue. Short facts are as follows: Respondent-assessee had accepted series of loans during the relevant assessment year all exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash. Such loans from various sources being in cash and in excess of ₹ 20,000/- was not permitted under section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s when facts were otherwise identical. He submitted that if the penalty for loans accepted from individual financiers was found to be opposed to section 269-SS, it is difficult to appreciate how the Tribunal deleted penalty for the loans accepted from the HUF of the partners of the assessee. He submitted that the HUF and individual partners being two separate entities, section 269-SS squarely appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uch loans in cash. Reference was also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection v. Km. A.B.Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 wherein the vires of statutory provisions in question were upheld relying on the provisions of section 273B giving discretion under certain circumstances not to impose penalty. We are of the view that the Tribunal committed no error particu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X