COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MAA KHODIYAR CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short) dated August 23, 2013, the Revenue has challenged the same in the present tax appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), raising the following two questions for our consideration:

(2.) The Assessing Officer levied the penalty for having found breach of section 269SS of the Act. He also noted that even if the persons advancing the loan were agriculturists, the assessee was assessable under the Income-tax Act and section 269SS would not permit him to take recourse to taking the amount in cash and penalty was a must.

(3.) This was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who noted the fact that the loan in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 had been taken and also recorded the fact that 7/12 extracts in support of these persons being agriculturists were submitted before the Assessing Officer. Having noted that these persons were agriculturists and are staying in remote areas, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relying on the decision of the apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1972 83 ITR 26 held that a technical or venial breach of provision cannot lead to levy of penalty, and, therefore, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer mainly holding that none of the transactions had been doubted by the Revenue.