https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178429 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to levy a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the explanation provided by the construction firm for receiving cash from a relative did not justify the violation of Section 269SS. The claim that the amount was a gift was rejected as an afterthought lacking credibility. The Court affirmed the penalty on the opening balance of Rs. 45,475, stating that the business's cash payments did not excuse the violation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the penalties were upheld due to the inadequate explanations provided by the assessee. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178429 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to levy a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the explanation provided by the construction firm for receiving cash from a relative did not justify the violation of Section 269SS. The claim that the amount was a gift was rejected as an afterthought lacking credibility. The Court affirmed the penalty on the opening balance of Rs. 45,475, stating that the business's cash payments did not excuse the violation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the penalties were upheld due to the inadequate explanations provided by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178429