2008 (1) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of CIT(A) and holding that the penalty under s. 271D amounting to Rs. 1,65,000 was correctly imposed by the AO ? (2)Whether under the facts and circumstance of the case the breach of the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act was merely a technical or venial breach for which no penalty under s. 271D should have been imposed ? (3)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the phrase ''equal to' contained in s. 271D of the Act leaves no discretion in the hands of the authority imposing penalty or it cannot maximum penalty to be imposed with discretion to impose lesser penalty ?" 3. The necessary basic facts are that the AO vide his order Annex. 1 found that during the relevant year, the assessee had taken loan/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such circumstance, and set aside the penalty. 5. The Revenue went in further appeal before the Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal, disagreeing with the finding of the learned CIT(A) held, that the breach involved is not mere a technical one but a clear and full-fledged one, though the mischief of the default, for which the penalty has been provided and accordingly levied under s. 271D, is in itself a technical one. Then, a distinction was drawn between technical breach and technical default, and it was found that if the requirements itself are technical, then, the contravention would be technical default and is of no avail to the assessee. Then, it was found that in the instant case, the situation is not of there having been compliance o....