Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 509 - HC - Income TaxPenalty under section 271D - Tribunal confirmed penalty levy - Held that:- The fact that money was withdrawn on 6th May, 1998 from the bank account of the lender and the fact that the money was deposited in the bank account of the borrower on 6th May, 1998 itself is a pointer to show that the assessee was under a belief that there was a great urgency. True that he could have achieved the object by obtaining an account payee cheque from the lender but the same would have taken time for the purpose of clearance. Having booked the vehicle on 29.04.1998 and demand by the financier to make immediate payment, the appellant was apprehensive of getting his, booking cancelled are also of non-availability of truck due to heavy demand in the market. The appellant was not sure whether the payments will be lump sum or through installments. He was driven by a sense of urgency for which he took loan from his brother in cash and deposited the same in his bank account. It was his judgement regarding the urgency in the prevailing circumstances and according to him the urgency existed for making payment.The observation of CIT (A) is a pointer to show that the case is clearly covered by Section 273B of the Income Tax Act. It is elementary that an appellate authority interferes with an order not because the impugned order is not right but because the impugned order is shown to be wrong. Our attention was not drawn to any finding of the learned Tribunal indicating that the order of CIT (A) was wrong. Therefore, the interference was not only wrong but also perverse. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
|