2016 (12) TMI 1788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Jamshedpur, dated 29.11.2013, for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s.271D of the Act. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, it was his submission that no penalty u/s.271D of the Act was leviable when the transaction in violation of section 269SS of the Act were found to be genuine. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers vs CIT, 294 ITR 599 (Jhar). 5. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. I fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity that the transaction in breach of the aforesaid provisions made by the assessee was mala fide and with the sole object to disclose the concealed or undisclosed money. The authorities have proceeded on the basis that breach of condition provided under s. 269SS shall lead to penal consequences. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty merely on technical mistake com....