R K SINGHAL Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE assessee, by this appeal, seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal dt. 26th April, 2002. The appeal was admitted on 14th Nov., 2002, by framing following substantial questions of law:

(3.) IN appeal, the learned CIT(A) set aside the penalty only by observing that provisions of Section 269SS are applicable only in those cases where deposits are treated as genuine and if the same are not genuine then recourse to Section 68 of the IT Act would be taken, and in that event, the amount shall be added to the assessee's income as unexplained credit and that would not attract Section 271D. The learned CIT(A) only found that the AO has accepted the genuineness of the cash deposits and has not made any addition on the ground, and that the cash deposits were not proved, and it is only a technical aspect if the assessee accepted the cash deposits in order to meet the treatment of serious illness of appellant's mother at Bombay, and that explanation cannot be rejected even if no evidence with regard to the illness of the mother is produced, and since no mens rea is involved. It was also found that it will be too harsh to levy penalty in such circumstance, and set aside the penalty.