- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE two IT Appeals under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 are directed against the order dt. 29th Dec., 1999, passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur in ITA No. 624/Jp/1993 and ITA No. 858/Jp/1993 for the asst. yr. 1991-92 and order dt. 21st Oct., 1999 passed by the Tribunal Jaipur in ITA No. 245/Jp/1993 and ITA No. 339/Jp/1993 for the asst. yr. 1990-91. Since the facts and the question involved in these matter are identical, we propose to decide both these appeals against the common orders as aforesaid by this common judgment and order a under. We have heard learned counsel Sh. Bhandawat and gone through the question as was framed by the Court while admitting the appeal No. 7/2000 on 18th Aug., 2000. The question framed by the Court was as under: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the D.C. to re-calculate the penalty under s. 271D only on the amount accepted during the yea and that too on the amount which exceeds Rs. 20,000 in contravention of the unambiguous provisions of s. 271D(1) and s. 269SS of the Act of 1961?" Having gone through the provisions of s. 269SS with regard to the mode of taking and accepting certain loans and deposits and s. 271D with regard to the penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of s. 269SS, we are of the opinion that in case, any loan is there exceeding Rs. 20,000 and for that purpose any penalty is to be imposed in accordance with the provisions of s. 27ID for violation of s. 269SS, the permissible amount of Rs, 20,000 has to be adjusted. In this view of the matter, we find that the Tribunal while passing these orders has not committed any illegality in remanding the matter back to the Dy. CIT of the Range. The Tribunalhas passed innocuous order that the matter should be remanded back to the Dy. CIT Range, who will recalculate the penalty. In view of the finding given in the order of the Tribunal after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, this order of remand as has been passed by the IT Tribunal appears to be in order to us, does not warrant any interference and the concerned Dy. CIT has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law by granting the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 20,000, which is permissible under s. 269SS. With the observations as aforesaid both these appeals are disposed of.;