TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elling the penalty of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 52,000 in ITA No. 191/Jdpr/1999 and ITA No. 192/Jdpr/1999, respectively, imposed by the Dy. CIT under s. 271E of the Act. The facts of the cases are that the AO observed that both the assessees had repaid loans/deposits in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 aggregating to Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 52,000, respectively, to Shri Narayan Singh, manager of the companies. He, therefore, felt that such payments violated the provisions of s. 269T of the Act. He referred the cases to Dy. CIT for consideration and levy of penalty under s. 271E. Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to both the assessees. In response to show-cause notices, the assessees replied that Shri Narayan Singh was a managing director in both the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the orders of CIT(A). He drew our attention to pp. 9 to 10 of the paper book which is copy of written submission made before the CIT(A). He further drew our attention to p. 1 of respective paper books which is a copy of current account of Shri Narayan Singh, managing director in the books of account of both the companies. He submitted that the opening balance in the current account was neither a loan nor a deposit. The amount were given to him for meeting various expenses. As and when accounts (were) rendered/submitted, the amounts were credited to this account. Thus, it was contended that these amounts were neither deposits nor loans. Hence, the provisions of s. 269T were not violated. He further submitted that the Dy. CIT had also init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of ss. 269SS and 269T have been introduced in the Act with a view to curb the black money. In' the present cases, the source of amounts received or repaid are not in doubt. In fact, copies of the assessment orders in both the cases have been placed on our file. The same do not show that any additions on this account were made or any transaction was considered as unexplained. These provisions cannot be used for blocking the day-to-day normal transactions. Otherwise it would be very difficult for anybody to run its business. In the present cases, the amounts have been given and repaid in the normal course of assessee's business and all these transactions are bona fide. Therefore, penalty under s. 271E is not attracted in both the cas....