TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Cuttack, dated 8.12.2015, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- as against Rs. 3,28,176/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271E of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in the case of Ajay Goel Vs. ACIT, Range-28, New Delhi, 126 ITD 89, where it was held that merely because the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been repaid in part not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- on a single day would not absolve the assessee from the rigours of section 269T as was clear from the section itself. It was held that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269 T of the Act by repay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000/-. 5. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers vs CIT, 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that there being no finding of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of provisions of section 269SS was not a genuine t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of OMEC Engineers (supra), wherein, it has been held that there being no finding of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of provisions of section 269SS was not a genuine transaction, penalty u/s.271D is not leviable merely for technical mistake. Similarly, in the present case also, we find that there is no finding of the Asses....