9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciated the facts on record thereby deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,61,193 levied under section 271D of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Question in R. A. No. 462/Ahd/1996. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record thereby deleting the penalty of Rs. 7,70,778 levied under section 271E of the Income-tax Act ?" 2. The assessment year is 1991-92. During course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee, who carries on business of money-lending and trades in jewellery, has accepted various loans/deposits from different parties and repaid such loans/deposits to different parties in contravention of the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act respectively. Accordingly the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Department. The assessee further took up the plea that he was dealing in financial matters of all the family members and the payments which were alleged in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act, were not the actual payments to those parties but these were payments towards PPF, LIC, income-tax and wealth-tax of all family. Another plea was that the assessee was maintaining current accounts with him. Another plea was that the assessee was physically handicapped and unable to move which was one of the factors for not getting the amount through bank draft or crossed account payee cheques, etc." 4. After hearing the parties the Tribunal has recorded the following findings after appreciating the evidence on record : " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oan and that cannot be treated as loan or deposits for the purpose of section 269SS. Coming to the nature of payments, most of the amounts, viz., Rs. 5,41,450 has been repaid by the assessee by depositing the different sums on behalf of his family members in PPF Rs. 25,523 has been paid towards LIC premium. The amounts of advance tax, income-tax as well as wealth-tax will be around Rs. 80,000 and again gift from one family member to other family member comes to Rs. 1.09 lakhs and Rs. 16,000 is again journal entry for allocation of share for household expenses. This again shows that no amount was paid by the assessee in cash to any of the family member. These facts as mentioned above, have not been challenged by the Revenue as g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and repays to different family members. 6. Heard Mr. B. B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue and Mr. Varun Patel for Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate for the respondent-assessee. 7. As can be seen from the findings reproduced hereinbefore the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at certain findings based on such appreciation of evidence. The position in law is well-settled that whether evidence is correctly appreciated or not cannot give rise to a question of law unless and until such findings are challenged as being contrary to the evidence on record or recorded after omitting to consider relevant evidence and taking into consideration irrelevant evidence. In the present case, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
