COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PARMA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), by the Revenue, is directed against order, dt. 6th May, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi, in ITA No. 4048/Del/1996, for the asst. yr. 1990 -91, By the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the CIT(A), whereby penalty levied on the respondent/assessed under Section 271D of the Act was deleted.

(2.) WHILE affirming the said order and holding that the assessed has been able to prove that there was a reasonable cause for receiving the money in cash, the Tribunal has held as follows : 'Further, we find that there was a reasonable cause because the assessed was going to be directly benefited if the cheques issue to M/s Hindustan Engg. Products are cleared in time, as there was a discount @ 2 per cent for cash payment against the bills. The cheques issued by assessed were of dt. 4th April, 1989; 14th Sept., 1989; 21st Dec., 1989; 16th Jan., 1990, and 20th Feb., 1990, and the advances, which were received by assessed in cash, were on the dates nearing the dates of issue of the above said cheques. The payment was received on 5th April, 1989; 15th Sept., 1989; 22nd Dec., 1989; 17th Jan., 1990 and 21st Feb., 1990, respectively. The loans were taken by assessed just to clear these cheques issued by it, as there was no sufficient bank balance with assessed. The amounts were prepaid through accounts payee cheques, this is an undisputed fact. We further noted that bona fide intention of the assessed has already been proved because the AO has made additions under Section 68 by rejecting the Explanationn of the assessed in regard to genuineness of these loans. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. However, all these additions were deleted by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 10th March, 1995, in ITA No. 1365/(Del)94 for asst. yr. 1990 -91, wherein it was held that the basis adopted by the Revenue in making the impugned additions, i.e., violation of the provisions of Section 269SS is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, the impugned additions were deleted. This, in our considered view, is a default of venial nature and the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steels v. State of Orissa : [1972]83ITR26(SC) is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. thereforee, in view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that penalty levied and confirmed by CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, we delete the same.'

(3.) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed.