2003 (12) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ash during the assessment year which is violation of the provisions of s. 269T of the IT Act. The details of the above amount are reproduced as under: "Sr. No. Name of party Amount repaid (Rs.) 1. Saheli Leasing & Finance Ltd. 31,000 2. Premier Rayons 4,90,324 3. Usha K. Shah 40,000 4. Neel Kamal Prints 50,000 5. Amin Enterprise (P) Ltd. 2,06,000 Total 8,17,324" The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty to the extent of Rs. 2,06,000 in the name of Amin Enterprises (P) Ltd., and deleted the balance amount on the basis that these did not come in the purview of the term 'deposit'. While confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,90,324 the CIT(A) observed that this amount has been expressly kept in the custody of the assessee for earning inte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee at the relevant time. He further submitted that the penalty in violation of s. 269T is applicable on such cases and not in the cases wherein transaction is genuine and there is reasonable cause for making the cash payment. The learned authorised representative further submitted that the cash payment was made to the sister concern as some of the directors are common. He further submitted that in case of sister concern if payment is made to the sister concern by cash there is no violation of s. 269T. It is also the submission of the learned authorised representative that the cash payment was in accordance with the commercial expediency and such violation is in the nature of technical wherein no penalty provision is applicable. The l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n support of his contention relied upon the decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in H. Ajit Bhai & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Ahd) 22 : (1993) 45 ITD 262 (Ahd). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that penalty levied is perfectly in order as the penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing show-cause notice dt. 25th Nov., 1997 and the penalty proceedings were completed on 8th May, 1998, which is well within the limitation provided in s. 275(1)(c). He urged that the order of the lower authorities may be confirmed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the record and gone through the decisions cited. After considering the totality of the facts of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X