TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 47,500 imposed under s. 271E of the IT Act, 1961. 2. I have heard the learned Departmental Representative as well as the counsel for the assessee. 3. The facts relating to the issue involved in these appeals are that AO noticed that the assessee had received cash deposits and had also repaid out of those deposits in cash which were in contravention of the provision of s. 269SS and 269T, respectively. The assessee had received cash from father of one Shri Gulabchand on various dates totalling to Rs. 33,000 and had pleaded that father of Shri Gulabchand was an agriculturist and had kept this amount with the assessee for giving to Shri Gulabchand to meet his education expenses. The AO, however, considered the same as deposits and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was trust money and not deposit. He, therefore, submitted that there was no question of contravention of provisions of s. 269SS. In support of this, the counsel relied upon the decision of Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Vivek Agencies vs. Dy. CIT 22 Tax World 593 (Jp) where such default was considered only a technical and venial breach of the provisions of law and penalty under s. 271D was cancelled. So far as penalty under s. 271E is concerned the counsel submitted that repayment to Smt. Sunder Devi was out of capital remaining with the assessee-firm after she left the firm and was paid for her household expenses. So far as the repayment to Smt. Pushpa Salecha was concerned the counsel submitted that the lady was to get urg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for meeting his education expenses cannot be considered as deposit, rather it was trust money to be repaid as and when required by Shri Gulabchand, and, therefore, I am of the opinion that there was no contravention of provisions under s. 269SS of the Act and consequently CIT(A) was quite justified in cancelling the penalty under s. 271D of the Act. 7. So far as repayment is concerned, I am of the opinion that repayment to Smt. Sunder Devi being out of capital remaining with the assessee-firm could not be said to be repayment out of loan or deposits and, therefore, was not covered the provisions of s. 269T of the Act. So far as repayment to Smt. Pushpa Salecha is concerned, the same being made for meeting treatment due to emergency of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
