9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same issue of levy of penalty u/s 27IE holding the appellant to have reasonable cause as contemplated in Section 273B. The facts of the present case are the same as in earlier years and find no reason to differ with the view taken by my predecessor. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.63/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2019 - Shri H.S.Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case shows that appellant is an RNBC registered with the Reserve Bank of India and is engaged in business of mobilization of deposits. The assessee collected certain deposits in cash exceeding ₹ 20,000/- and therefore, the ld AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 142(2A) of the Act on 16.08.2012 found that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269 SS and 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the hon ble jurisdiction High court has held as under:- 6.2 I have considered the penalty order, the submissions of the appellant and the orders of my predecessor in appellant s own case for AYs 1993-94, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 2005-06 wherein penalty imposed by Additional CIT has been deleted the on the same issue of levy of penalty u/s 27IE holding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar to the facts in the present case and, therefore, the ratio of Hon ble High Court ruling in that case will be applicable to this appeal also. It has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corp. Ltd. [AIR 1992 SC 711] and Khalid Automobiles v. Union of India [4 SCC (Suppl.) 653] that the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal are bindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
