AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—The revenue has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal u/s 260A of the income tax Act, 1961, challenging the view taken by the income tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, in ITA No. 931/Chandi/96, dated 23-8-2002, in respect of assessment year 1993-94. It has been claimed that the following substantial question of law would arise for our determination:- Whether in law, the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, was correct in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order, canceling the penalty of Rs. 2,39,458 u/s 271D of the IT Act, 1961, totally disregarding, the provisions of section 269SS /269T which applicable in the case of all six deposits with assessee as the deposits under reference were not related to sale of agricultural produce through the assessee to be covered by the Board''s Circular No. 387 dated 6-7-1984 and No. 556, dated 23-2-1990
We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and find that the application of Circular No. 387, dated 6-7-1984 and Circular No. 556, dated 23-2-1990, would be considered only if there findings returned by the Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) or by the Tribunal that the transaction between the assessee, who is kacha arhtia, and the seller of the agricultural produce in respect of non-agricultural items. On the contrary the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that there nothing on record to show that deposits were bogus and non-genuine so as to attract the provisions of section 269SS of the Act as it stood on the relevant date. In the absence of such findings of fact, no question of law would arise much less any substantial question of law.
Dismissed.