| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 3995 2007 SLD 3995 (2007) 294 ITR 644 |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
A.M. SAPRE AND ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
A.M. SAPRE AND ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law:
Section:
[2007] 294 ITR 644 [2006] 157 TAXMAN 433 (MP) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH Kothari & Company* v. Commissioner of Income-tax A.M. SAPRE AND ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2001 APRIL 7, 2006 Section 271D, read with sections 271E, 269SS and 269T, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS - Assessment year 1989-90 - Assessee-company, during period 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989, had accepted cash in excess of Rs. 10,000 by way of loan/deposit from various persons and repaid same in cash to them - Joint Commissioner, therefore, imposed penalty upon assessee under sections 271D and 271E for allegedly violating provisions of sections 269SS and 269T - Whether since sections 271D and 271E were not on statute book during period when assessee committed breach of sections 269SS and 269T, and said sections were brought in force on 1-4-1989 and were not retrospective in operation, penalty could not be imposed on assessee - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-company, during the period 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989, had accepted the amounts in excess of Rs. 10,000 in cash by way of loan/deposit from various persons and repaid the same in cash to them. Since the aforesaid acceptance and its repayment were in breach of section 269SS and section 269T, show-cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner to the assessee on 7-2-1994 under sections 271D and 271E, proposing as to why penalty as contemplated under these two sections be not imposed. The assessee contended, inter alia, that penalty provisions were not in force between period 1-4-1988 to 31-3-l989. The Joint Commissioner did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to impose penalty under sections 271D and 271E. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both upheld the order of the Joint Commissioner. On appeal : HELD Section 271D and section 271E could not be invoked by the Joint Commissioner against the assessee for imposing the penalty because firstly, those two sections were not on the statute book prior to 1-4-1989, i.e., during the period when the assessee committed breach of section 269SS and section 269T. Secondly, those two sections…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492