TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is relating to the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh levied under s. 271D in respect of receipts of Rs. 20,000 each from five persons in contravention of provisions of s. 269SS. The CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee on the basis of CBDT Circular No. 572, dt. 3rd Aug., 1990, wherein the Board had expressed that provisions of s. 271D would be attracted in respect of receipt of deposits, etc. in excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above in para 2, it was contended that when the CBDT can commit a mistake, there is no reason not to accept the fact that assessee or his chartered accountant could also commit a mistake in appreciating the law. The learned counsel for the assessee further relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Ajanta Dyeing Printing Mills (2003) 130 Taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the assessee. Moreover, on the basis of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ajanta Dyeing Printing Mills, no penalty is chargeable as each deposit does not exceed Rs. 20,000. The penalty in that case would work out to nil . I, therefore, see no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
