9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10,000 for violation of s. 269SS of the IT Act. 2. The AO stated that the assessee accepted loan of Rs. 10,000 by way of cash from Sri Krishna Kr. Pathak during the financial year 1992-93 relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The AO stated that the aggregate amount of unpaid loan exceeded Rs. 20,000 and as such the assessee violated the provision of s. 269SS of the Act. The AO levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UF) and debited the assessee(HUF) account. However, the learned CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that s. 269SS of the Act does not provide an exception and as such confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. Hence, the assessee (HUF) is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned Authorised Representative of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rve that the assessee (HUF) and the Karta of the assessee (HUF) were maintaining current account with each other and the transactions between them were in the nature of temporary adjustment/accommodation and there was no cash loan or deposit by the Karta of the assessee(HUF). However, the Department has not disputed the submission of the assessee(HUF) that no interest was paid or payable or receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of a private company maintained current account with the company where he deposited and withdrew funds as per exigencies of the company. It was held that such transactions had nothing to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income and the transactions did not fall within the mischief sought to be remedied by s. 269SS of the Act. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Flower Builde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
