TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepted the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/from her husband in cash and it was not obligatory for her to route the transaction only by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft. The explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the tribunal without considering the claim of the assessee that the the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the transaction need not have been routed only through the Bank vide cheque or a draft, reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax to uphold the order imposing the penalty. Penalty cannot be levied on the assessee under Section 271D of the Act if the transaction between the parties is bona fide and the assessee has not acted deliberately or in defia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account and credited the same in his account and gave the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/to the assessee out of the said amount in cash on 03.01.1995. The assessing officer held that as the assessee had accepted the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/in cash and the same was not received by her by cheque or demand draft, penalty proceedings were liable to be initiated against her under Section 271D of the Act. An order imposing penalty under Section 271D was passed against the assessee on 27.02.1998 and the penalty of ₹ 15,000/was levied on the assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. The assessee challenged this order imposing the penalty before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Supreme Court reported in 83 ITR 26 that an order imposing penalty for carrying out a statutory obligation would not be passed unless the party, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or in conscious disregard of its obligation. It is submitted that it is held in the said decision that where there is a technical breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from the bona fide belief, penalty would not be leviable. The learned counsel then relied on the judgment reported in 1997 (3) Mh.L.J.943, to substantiate his submission that the order imposing penalty being a result of quasi criminal proceedings, penalty should not be ordinarily imposed unless the party has acted deliberately in defiance. It is submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee that the the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the transaction need not have been routed only through the Bank vide cheque or a draft, reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax to uphold the order imposing the penalty. The judgments reported in 83 ITR 26; 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 943 and ( 2008) 217 CTR 144, support the case of the assessee that penalty cannot be levied on the assessee under Section 271D of the Act if the transaction between the parties is bona fide and the assessee has not acted deliberately or in defiance. In the circumstances of the case, merely in view of the technical mistake, the penalty could not have been levied on the assessee under Section 271D of the Act. The judgment in the case of 83 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
