2004 (4) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sst. yr. 1993-94. 2. The Revenue is agitating on the ground that the learned CIT(A) has erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,01,000 imposed under s. 271D of the IT Act for violation of provisions of s. 269SS of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had accepted loan/deposit in cash in violation of provisions of s. 269SS. The details of such cash/deposit are as und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reasons and various case laws given by the assessee at pp. 2 and 3 of his order, opined that no penalty can be imposed for mere technical violation. The learned Departmental Representative has vehemently argued that the assessee has no reasonable cause to accept loan in cash and the learned CIT(A) had deleted this penalty without going into the reasons for accepting loan in cash. The learned Depar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uly, 1984. He also relied upon the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) and contended that if it is proved that the deposit was not taken with the object of evading any payment of income-tax, the penal action deserves to be dropped. If there is only a technical or venial breach of law, the provision of s. 271D which is exceptional and very harsh should not be invo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) and contended that it is only because of mere ignorance of law that the assessee accepted these loans in cash. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. We also find that none of the cash transactions involves cash exceeding Rs. 20,000. In the case of CIT vs. Aloo Supply Co. (1980) 121 ITR 680 (Ori), the Hon'ble Orissa High C....