TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The assessee, by this appeal, seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal dt. 26th April, 2002. The appeal was admitted on 14th Nov., 2002, by framing following substantial questions of law : "(1)Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) and holding that the penalty under s. 271D amounting to ₹ 1,65,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed liability of penalty under s. 271D. The learned AO considered the explanation of the assessee about the reasonable cause, as contemplated by s. 273B, and found that the explanation is not believable. The explanation given was about the assessee's mother having become ill, who was required to be taken to Bombay and in receiving the amount by cheque, it would have involved some time, which he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en if no evidence with regard to the illness of the mother is produced, and since no mens rea is involved. It was also found that it will be too harsh to levy penalty in 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 te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ombay for treatment as she was seriously ill but no details of her illness nor any supportive evidence regarding her illness and for her treatment at Bombay has been furnished, and in turn the related urgency remains as having not been established. It was also found that this is also the undisputed position that the assessee never took his mother to Bombay for treatment and the explanation is that....