- (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of IT Appeal Nos. 102 and 17 of 1999. The facts have been taken from IT Appeal No. 102 of 1999. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue proposing the following substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in upholding the deletion of penalty under s. 271E by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee company was under a bona fide belief that the limit of Rs. 20,000 for accepting a deposit was in force in the year under consideration where the law
(2.) THE relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee company had repaid deposit/loan of Rs. 10,000 other than by account payee cheques, or accounts payee bank drafts on 10th IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Accordingly, penalty proceedings under s. 271E of the Act were initiated by the then under s. 271E was imposed by the then Dy. CIT, Range I, Jalandhar, at Rs. 10,000 vide order passed by him on 21st
(3.) ON appeal, the CIT(A), Jalandhar, deleted the said penalty vide his order passed in Appeal No. 700/91 -92/CIT(A)/Jal., The CIT(A) held that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the limit for deposit and repayment of loan in cash was Rs. 20,000 for the year under consideration.;