TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961, by accepting a loan of Rs. 90,000 in cash in the year from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, on different dates from his brother Pankaj Sharma is not in dispute. The details of the loan accepted by the assessee from his brother Pankaj Sharma are thus: Rs. 17,000 on 13-12-2000 Rs. 18,000 on 15-12-2000 Rs. 15,000 on 25-12-2000 Rs. 18,000 on 24-01-2001 Rs. 17,000 on 30-01-2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer. On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated October 6, 2005, set aside the penalty levied under section 271D. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal by the Revenue. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the ignorance of law is no excuse, more so, the assessee being regular assessee was well aware of the legal provisions. According to her, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for any failure, inter alia, referred to section 271D if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The Tribunal in its order has found that the genuineness of the deposits made by the assessee's brother Pankaj Sharma was not in doubt by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noticed the explanation given by the assessee that the deposits were obtained by him to satisfy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
