TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the CIT. R.A. No. 713/Ahd/1997 : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271D ? Whether the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on records so as to cancel the penalty levied ? R.A. No. 714/Ahd/1997 : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anandkumar was ₹ 18,374. Therefore, for the financial year 1989-90 the opening balance was ₹ 18,374. Cheque of ₹ 15,000 was given on 25th July, 1989 and ₹ 5,000 on 23rd Oct., 1989. The cheque were also given on 15th Dec., 1989 and 20th Dec., 1989, only a sum of ₹ 2,100 was paid in cash. It was submitted that this payment was not business deal but was only receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able cause in accepting the amount in cash. 6. In relation to the two questions referred under reference application No. 714/Ahd/1997, the AO noted that the assessee had paid certain amount in cash totalling to ₹ 2,11,531 and, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 71,500 under s. 271E of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty. 7. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciated the facts and evidence on record. There is no evidence to come to the conclusion that such appreciation of facts and evidence is not correct, or is perverse. Therefore, the impugned order of Tribunal in relation to deletion of penalty under s. 271D and s. 271E of the Act does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the four questions are answered in the affirmative, that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
