TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... none attended on behalf of the assessee nor any reply was received. Since the matter was becoming time-barred on 31st Aug., 1991, AO proceeded on merits to decide the question of levy of penalty on the basis of information available on file. He ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,800, which was equal to the aggregate amount of loan/deposit. 3. On first appeal, learned counsel contended that AO was not justified in imposing the impugned penalty. He filed a copy of account of Shri Jindal in the assessee's books of account, extracts whereof have been reproduced at p. 1 of the order. Cash deposits in excess of Rs. 20,000 were only of deposits of Rs. 2,000 on 3rd March, 1990, and Rs. 1,500 on 29th March, 1990. He urged that at best penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SS because of which penalty could be said to be not justified. He, therefore, directed AO to reduce the penalty to the minimum imposable in respect of the two amounts aggregating to Rs. 3,500. Both the assessee and the Revenue are aggrieved. 4. Learned counsel while defending reduction of penalty with reference to amount of Rs. 2,500 also submitted that actually the penalty should have been deleted, as the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting the said two amounts of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,500. He referred to an article published in (1995) 124 CTR (Article) 165 by Shri Rajeev Sogani on provisions of ss. 269SS and 269T. He referred to page 169, where it is mentioned that in view of section 273B no penalty can be imposed if the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to investment. On a further query, learned counsel stated that the said copy was not placed before CIT(A). He, therefore, pleaded that the said copy of account may be ignored. He referred to the Board's Circular No. 220 and submitted that while certain exceptional circumstances have been laid down in respect of cash payments under s. 40A(3), no such circumstances have been prescribed by the legislature for the purpose of s. 269SS. He urged that the same set of circumstances would also constitute a reasonable cause for the purpose of s. 269SS and that the assessee had no intention to violate the said provisions. He relied on the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein it is observed that 'An orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted only when the aggregate amount of loan/deposit is Rs. 20,000 or more. I feel that the scheme of legislation is quite clear that no penalty is attracted with reference to amount of loan/deposit below of Rs. 20,000 and that penalty would only be exigible with reference to further loan/deposit in excess of Rs. 20,000. This appears to be a more plausible view, in the light of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products 1973 CTR (SC) 177 : (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). I, therefore, feel that CIT(A) has taken a correct view in restricting penalty with reference to aggregate amount of Rs. 3,500. Regarding plea of learned counsel that the assessee had a reasonable cause in accepting the two amounts of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,500 as the depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
