TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cash by the assessee. On being required to do so, the assessee explained that the assessee-firm was short of funds and the amounts were borrowed in cash from the persons, who were either family members of the partners or sister concerns of the assessee. They were all taxpayers and were filing separate returns of income. The transactions were thus genuine and the levy of penalties would, therefore, be unjustified. Similarly, the Assessing Officer found from examination of the assessee's books of account and the bank summary furnished by the assessee that the assessee-firm had repaid the deposits together with interest in cash aggregating to Rs. 3,90,998 in contravention of the provisions of s. 269T. In connection with this contravention a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that this aspect of the matter shall be re-examined by the Assessing Officer and re-computation shall be made accordingly. 5. The next point raised before us was that the questioned transactions in cash were entered into only with the members of partners of the assessee-firm or with the sister concerns of the assessee-firm and were entered into in emergencies and on account of dire need of money. We find that such plea was raised before the two Revenue authorities, who have rejected the same. No further material has been laid before us. From the material available on the record we find that no case has been made out for our interference on this aspect of the matter. The two Revenue authorities have held and in our opinion correctly tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of cash receipts and also in the case of cash payments, was in dire need of money. After taking all the relevant facts and circumstances in their totality, we hold that there was no reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the provisions of s. 269SS and s. 269T. 6. The next point raised by the assessee was that in a case of the present nature involving only contravention of technical provisions of law, levy of penalty equal to 100 per cent of the amount of the transactions involved is very harsh. According to the learned counsel, it would not be correct to say that the provisions of s. 271D and s. 271E lay down any minimum penalty and that such penalty is equal to 100 per cent of the amount of loans or deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t matter the Revenue authorities, have no discretion with regard to the quantum of penalty to be imposed. What s. 271D or s. 271E lays down is the liability of the defaulter to be subjected to a penalty equal to the amount of loan or deposit taken or accepted in case of s. 271D or equal to the amount of deposits repaid in case of s. 271E. It cannot be disputed that these contraventions are purely technical. The genuineness of the transactions is not doubted by the two Revenue authorities in the present case. Similarly, it is not disputed that the transactions were only between the assessee-firm on the one hand and the members of the families of the partners or the sister concerns on the other. In these circumstances, it will be really harsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
