High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Parma Nand
Sections 260A, 271D
Asst. Year 1990-91
D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 322 of 2002
26th November, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Sanjeev Khanna with Subhash C. Sharma, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
This appeal under s. 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/assessee under s. 271D of the Act was deleted.
2. While affirming the said order and holding that the assessee 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 assessee 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 assessee 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 assessee in cash, were on the dates nearing the dates of issue of the abovesaid 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 assessee just to clear these cheques issued by it, as there was no sufficient bank balance with assessee. The amounts were prepaid through accounts payee cheques, this is an undisputed fact. We further noted that bona fide intention of the assessee has already been proved because the AO has made additions under s. 68 by rejecting the explanation of the assessee 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 s. 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 vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Therefore, 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 afore-extracted portion of the Tribunal’s order shows that the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was a reasonable cause in not strictly complying with the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act is based on relevant factors. We find it difficult to hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is either perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person, on the given facts, would have come to the same conclusion. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 266 ITR 255]
