Section 269SS, 271D of Income tax Act, 1961—Penalty u/s 271D—This appeal is directed against the order of CIT whereby he confirmed the penalty of 3,42,000/- imposed by the AO u/s 271D.

It was noticed by AO that the assessee had taken fresh unsecured loans during the year under consideration from her daughter her son-in-law amounting to 95,000/- and 2,66,000/- otherwise than by account payee cheques or account payee Bank Drafts. Since the said loans were taken by the assessee in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, penalty proceedings under section 271D were initiated.

Held that— we hold that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271D and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable. We accordingly cancel the said penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.[SNEHALATA SITANI VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX] [2019] 12 ITCD Online (27) [ITAT KOLKATA]