9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case also, we find that there is no finding of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) that the transactions in violation of section 269SS of the Act were not genuine. The assessee s return has been accepted u/s.143(3) of the Act after scrutiny. There is no finding that the transactions were malafide aimed at disclosing concealed money. Therefore, we delete the levy of penalty u/s.271E - Decided in favour of assessee - Shri N.S Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member Assessee by: Shri P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR ORDER Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Cuttack, dated 8.12.2015, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The sole ground of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the said provisions and has therefore become liable for penalty u/s. 271E of the Act for penalty of ₹ 3,28,176/- U/s. 271E of the Act and levied penalty accordingly. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the payment made to Kanchan Bala Thakkar amounting to ₹ 20,386/- and Sri Banmali Mishra amounting to ₹ 47,790/- may not come strictly as contravention of the provisions of section 269T of the Act. As regards the rest of the payments/deposits in cash is concerned, it appears that the assessee has made convenient arrangements with his family members regarding the rest of the amount repaid in cash. Therefore, he considered those payments as violation of provisions of section 269T of the Act and, accordingly confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not leviable merely for technical mistake. Similarly, in the present case also, we find that there is no finding of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) that the transactions in violation of section 269SS of the Act were not genuine. The assessee s return has been accepted u/s.143(3) of the Act after scrutiny. There is no finding that the transactions were malafide aimed at disclosing concealed money. Therefore, respectfully the decision in the case of OMEC Engineers (supra), we delete the levy of penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- u/s.271E of the Act and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 /02/2017 in the presence of parties. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
