https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181815 The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271-D of the Income-tax Act on the assessee, a dentist who took loans for business purposes, was unjustified. The loans were genuine, used for business needs, and accepted by the Assessing Officer during assessment. Citing precedent, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that ignorance of the law, without tax avoidance or evasion, does not warrant a penalty. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2016 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181815 The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271-D of the Income-tax Act on the assessee, a dentist who took loans for business purposes, was unjustified. The loans were genuine, used for business needs, and accepted by the Assessing Officer during assessment. Citing precedent, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal emphasized that ignorance of the law, without tax avoidance or evasion, does not warrant a penalty. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181815