9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T - Tribunal was right in holding that penalty u/s 271D & 271E cannot be imposed for violation of section 269SS & 269T respectively, if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had taken a cash loan violating the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") and repaid the amount in cash violating section 269T of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 2,55,000 under section 271D and Rs. 60,000 under section 271E of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the assessee to contravene the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and accordingly, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the questions of law referred to above. 5. Mr. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that sections 269SS and 269T of the Act are mandatory a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A. B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258, held that if there was genuine and bona fide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty. 9. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
