TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, s.273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that if there is a genuine and bonafide transaction then, the Assessing Officer is vested with a discretionary power not to impose penalty - Therefore, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee has shown reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of s.267SS and 269T cannot be faulted. - I.T.A. NO. 1053 to 1062 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2011 - CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR K.K. TATED, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant P.C. 1. In all these appeals, the questions of law raised by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under sections 271D/271E r/w sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. The Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the CIT(A), in so far as it directs the Assessing Officer to quantify the penalty under sections 271D and 271E on the amount exceeding Rs.20,000/, the ITAT by its order dated 27.08.2008 has upheld the decision of the CIT(A) by relying upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajanta Dyeing and Printing Mills reported in (2003) 264 ITR 505. The appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of ITAT dt.27.8.2008 have been dismissed by this Court for want of removal of office objection. Thus the orders passed by the ITAT on that aspect of the matter have attained finality. 7. As regards the appeals filed by the Assessee challenging the decision of the CIT (A) upholding the levy of imposition of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has further held that when the transactions are genuine, then the violation of sections 269SS and 269T can at best be termed as a technical violation and in the facts of the present case, the Assessee has demonstrated that he had a reasonable cause for accepting /repaying the loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/and therefore, it is not a fit case for imposing penalty. 11. While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 269(SS), the Apex Court in the case of Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) vs. Kumari A.B. Shanti reported in (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) has held that the main object of section 269(SS) was to curb the menace of making false entries in the books and later on give explanation for the same. In the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
