TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) has erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,01,000 imposed under s. 271D of the IT Act for violation of provisions of s. 269SS of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had accepted loan/deposit in cash in violation of provisions of s. 269SS. The details of such cash/deposit are as under: (1) Smt. Veerbala Sharma: Rs. 9,000 on 14-8-1992 Ramesh Agro Service Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o penalty can be imposed for mere technical violation. The learned Departmental Representative has vehemently argued that the assessee has no reasonable cause to accept loan in cash and the learned CIT(A) had deleted this penalty without going into the reasons for accepting loan in cash. The learned Departmental Representative (IT) relied upon the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR 26 (SC) and contended that if it is proved that the deposit was not taken with the object of evading any payment of income-tax, the penal action deserves to be dropped. If there is only a technical or venial breach of law, the provision of s. 271D which is exceptional and very harsh should not be invoked. He also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kantilal P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only because of mere ignorance of law that the assessee accepted these loans in cash. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. We also find that none of the cash transactions involves cash exceeding Rs. 20,000. In the case of CIT vs. Aloo Supply Co. (1980) 121 ITR 680 (Ori), the Hon ble Orissa High Court held that the appellant was under the bona fide belief that provisions of s. 271D was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
