Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. Shri Waheguru Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 710 of 2008Date of Decision : December 22, 2008. Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chandigarh....AppellantVs.Shri Waheguru Singh....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present :Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counselfor the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1.Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench `B', Chandigarh dated17.09.2007 passed in I.T.A. No.238/Chandi/2006 for the Assessment Year2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law :- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'bleITAT was justified in deleting the penaltiesimposed under section 271E of the Income-taxAct, 1961, especially since the assessee had repaidloans in cash in violation of the provisions of sections 269T of the Act ?” 2.The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings underSection 271E on the allegation that the assessee had made repayment ofcash loan in violation of Section 269T of the Act. The penalty wasthereafter levied. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal set asidethe same. The Tribunal observed as under :- “In the present case also the assesseedid not act deliberately in defiance of law and hisconduct was not dishonest, neither he acted inconscious disregard of its obligation, since thetransactions were genuine and entered due tobusiness exigency and even if there was any breachof the provisions of the Act i.e. the loan exceedingRs.20,000/- were not received and paid throughcheques, this breach was a venial breach and flowsfrom a bonafide belief. Therefore, the assesseewas not liable to the penalties.” 3.We have heard leaned counsel for the Revenue.4.We are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal isa finding of fact. 5.No substantial question of law arises. 6.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE