JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The instant petition relates to proceedings carried out for levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”), in respect of a default under Section 269T of the 1961 Act for which the penalty of Rs. 25,000 was levied by the respondent authorities in terms of Section 271E of the 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. The 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 the 1961 Act and except for making routine additions in respect of interest paid to partners to the tune of Rs. 4,000 from out of loss of Rs. 13,484 claimed in bardana account, and another amount of Rs. 1,000 from out of expenditure incurred for tea, coffee, etc. and for a balance-sheet difference of Rs. 87, the returned figures were accepted by him. By the same order the Income-tax Officer also granted continuation of registration in terms of Section 185 of the 1961 Act. The assessment order was passed on January 30, 1991. The Income-tax Officer, however, initiated proceedings under Section 271E of the 1961 Act in respect of repayment in cash to Shri Heera Lal Gupta vide order dated January 30, 1991. However, subsequently the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-I, Jaipur, issued another notice on July 18, 1991. The petitioner-firm filed a detailed explanatory note showing exhaustive cause for non-levy of penalty, inter alia stating that 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 Deputy 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 271A of the 1961 Act in the sum of Rs. 50,000. Being aggrieved with the order dated July 26, 1991, of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rajasthan-I, Jaipur, who, vide order dated February 14, 1992, allowed the appeal of the petitioner-firm. The respondent thereafter assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 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.
3. The petitioner-firm moved an application under Section 254 of 1961 Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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.
4. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record.
5. Mr. Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm vehemently canvassed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 25,000 in terms of Section 271E of the 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been remitted back, but the matter was disposed of by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself. It is further contended that the petitioner-firm has been punished for a mere technical default of Section 269T of the 1961 Act and hyper technical default of not submitting the documents. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Manoj Lalwani [2003] 260ITR 590 (Raj).
6. Having scanned the material on record, I notice that the petitioner had failed to prove the 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 271E of the 1961 Act was imposed on the petitioner-firm. A look at Section 269T of the 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 271E of the 1961 Act provides that if a person repays any deposit referred to in Section 269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the deposit so repaid. In CIT v. Manoj Lalwani [2003] 260 ITR 590 (Raj) 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 271D. 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.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to show the reasonable cause in contravening the provisions contained in Section 269T, therefore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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.