Tribunal directs reconsideration of penalty order under sec. 271D, emphasizing assessee's right to appeal.

The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the CIT(A) to entertain and decide the appeal on its merits. The tribunal held that the provisions of sec. 249(4) do not apply to penalties like the one imposed under sec. 271D, emphasizing the inherent right of appeal for an assessee against penalty orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271D for accepting cash loans exceeding the prescribed limit.
2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) based on non-payment of self-assessment tax.
3. Interpretation of provisions of sec. 249(4) regarding the admissibility of appeals against penalty orders.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 under section 271D for accepting cash loans exceeding Rs. 20,000 in contravention of sec. 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO concluded that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for accepting the loans in cash. The penalty was imposed equal to the amount of cash received by the assessee as loans. The appeal was filed challenging this penalty order.

2. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee had not paid the self-assessment tax. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal due to non-payment of self-assessment tax, in addition to advance tax, by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee appealed against the rejection of the initial appeal before the appellate tribunal.

3. The tribunal considered the provisions of sec. 249(4) regarding the admissibility of appeals. The tribunal noted that the penalty under sec. 271D was not related to any specific assessment year but was imposed for contravention of sec. 269SS. The tribunal opined that the right of appeal against a penalty order is inherent to an assessee, and the provisions of sec. 249(4) do not apply to penalties like the one imposed under sec. 271D. The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the appeal solely based on the provisions of sec. 249(4) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it on merits.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the CIT(A) to entertain the appeal and decide it on its merits.

---