SHARMA, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition relates to proceedings carried out for levy of penalty under Section 271-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act') in respect of a default under Section 269-T of 1961 Act for which the penalty of RS. 25,000/- was levied by the respondent authorities in terms of Section 271- E of 1961 Act upon the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm seeks to quash the impugned orders dated November 19, 1993, July 12, 1994 and December 20, 1994.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner firm had furnished a return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 with the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer processed the return under Section 143 (3) of 1961 Act and except for making routine additions in respect of interest paid to partners to the tune of Rs. 4000/- from out of loss of Rs. 13,484/- claimed in Bardana account and another amount of Rs. 1000/- from out of expenditure incurred for Tea, Coffee etc. and for a balance sheet difference of 87/- the returned figure were accepted by him. By the same order the Income Tax Officer also granted continuation of registration in terms of Section 185 of 1961 Act. The assessment order was passed on January 30, 1991. The Income Tax Officer however initiated proceedings under Section 271-E of 1961 Act in respect of repayment in cash to Shri Heera Lal Gupta vide order dated January 30, 1991. However subsequently the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I. Jaipur issued another notice on July 18, 1991. The petitioner firm filed detailed explanatory note showing exhaustive cause for non levy of penalty, interalia stating it was a case of mere technical defaults and the genuineness of the transaction was never really in dispute. It was suggested on behalf of the petitioner firm that to ensure attendance of Heera Lal Gupta this amount may be attached. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I. Jaipur was not satisfied with the explanatory note and vide order dated July 26, 1991 levied a penalty under Section 271-A of 1961 Act in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Being aggrieved with the order dated July 26, 1991 of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rajasthan I, Jaipur, who vide order dated February 14, 1992 allowed the appeal of petitioner firm. The respondent thereafter assailed the order of Commissioner by filing the appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `itat' ). The ITAT vide order dated November 19, 1993 came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- would meet ends of justice. The petitioner firm moved an application under Section 254 of 1961 Act before ITAT but the application was rejected vide order dated December 20, 1994. The said order, including other orders have been assailed by the petitioner firm in the instant writ petition. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner firm, vehemently canvassed that ITAT has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Section 271-E of 1961 Act merely on the basis of an erroneous assumption in respect of the petitioner's conduct in not having filed the appropriate and relevant documents before the ITAT. The matter in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been remitted back, but the matter was disposed of by ITAT itself. It is further contended that the petitioner firm has been punished for a mere technical default of Section 269-T of 1961 Act and hyper technical default of not submitting the documents. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manoj Lalwani (2003 CTR Reports 180 ). Having scanned the material on record, I notice that the petitioner had failed to prove repayment or deposit of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise than by crossed cheque or bank draft was made by it for some reasonable cause. In this situation the penalty under Section 271-E of 1961 Act was imposed on the petitioner firm. A look at Section 269-T of 1961 Act demonstrates that no company or firm shall repay to any person any deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft where the amount of the deposit, or where the amount of the deposit is to be repaid together with any interest, the aggregate of the amount of the deposit and such interest is ten thousand rupees or more. Section 271-E of 1961 Act provides that if a person repays and deposit referred to in Section 269-T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the deposit so repaid. In CIT vs. Manoj Lalwani (supra) the question for consideration was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal had committed illegality in deleting the penalty under Section 271 D. The assessee exporter in that case took the cash loan in contravention of Section 269ss because he was in urgent need of money for making the time bound supplies. The Division Bench of this Court under those circumstances found it as a reasonable cause for setting aside the penalty.
(3.) IN the instant case the petitioner, has failed to show the reasonable cause in contravening the provisions contained in section 269t, therefore, ITAT was right in passing the impugned judgment. IN my opinion, this is not a fit case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. .;