Case Law Details
Facts are exactly identical what was before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra) and in each of case cash loan is not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- rather it is exactly Rs. 20,000/-. Since there is a circular and which is a beneficial circular under section 269SS of the Act and Hon’ble Bombay High Court has interpreted circular no. 572 dated 3rd August 1990 (supra) wherein vide para 3 relevant portion of clause 43 is as under:
“43. Secs. 271C, 271D and 271E, which were inserted in the I T Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, provided for the levy of penalties for certain defaults. Penalty under s. 271C was levied for failure to deduct tax at source. Penalty under s. 271D may be levied for failure to comply with the provisions of s. 269SS i.e. for taking or accepting any loan or deposit in excess of Rs. 20,000 otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft. Penalty under s. 271E may be levied for failure to comply with the provisions of s. 269T relating to repayment by a company, including a banking company, a co-operative society or a firm, of deposits, including interest, exceeding Rs. 20,000/- the aggregate otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft.”
As the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, cited supra and Board circular no. 572 dated 03.08.1990, we delete the penalty so levied by Addl. CIT and upheld by CIT(A).
IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’
Gopal Sarkar
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
