ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot be sustained...

ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim of cash loans and simultaneously made an addition as unexplained investment under Section 69; the tribunal found this dual approach internally inconsistent. The legal principle applied was that imposition of penalty for contravention of the cash transaction prohibition requires an undisputed finding of cash receipt; absent acceptance of the loan claim by the assessing or appellate authority, initiation and levy of penalty is arbitrary. Outcome: appeal allowed and penalty under Section 271D deleted.