Case Law Details
Ms. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttak)
Conclusion: Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief.
Held: Assessee had paid a sum to 25 different parties which were in excess of 20,000/ at a time and were not made through cheques. AO therefore, believed that the payments were hit by section 269T and resultantly, assessee was liable to penalty under section 271E. Assessee’s case was that such amounts were neither loans nor deposits and therefore, section 269T would not be applicable. It was held the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief, therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E could not be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 29.3.2017 for the assessment year 2008-2009.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
