TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Adv. Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C. (I.T.) Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rupa Kumari, Adv. Dated 10 th October, 2012 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The following substantial questions of law has been referred to this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna vide order dated 18.8.2000: (i) Whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....khs and cash receipts was amounting to Rs.3,03,142/- against opening balance of Rs.1,97,468/- in the account of M/s Bebbco, in addition to the sales made to them and amounting to Rs. 4,42,776/-/. By making a cash payment of Rs.87,650/-, the account was squared up. This transaction was treated not to be a transaction of deposit but it was a transaction during the course of business in the opinion o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r imposition of penalty against the assessee. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, delivered in the case of OMEC Engineers Vrs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2007] 294 ITR 599(Jhar) and submitted that merely because of technical mistake committed by the assessee, the penalty should not have been imposed under Section 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03,142/- which appears to have a cash payment received by the assessee. In the facts of the case, it cannot be held that these transactions could not have been business transactions and during the course of the transactions, some payments have been made in cash. Otherwise also, it may only be a technical mistake retaining certain loans of one party, which is peculiar in the facts of the case. We ....