JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These two income-tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are directed against the order dated December 29, 1999 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in I. T. A. No. 624/JP of 1993 and I. T. A. No. 858/JP of 1993 for the assessment year 1991-92 and order dated October 21, 1999 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in I. T. A. No. 245/JP of 1993 and I. T. A. No. 339/JP of 1993 for the assessment year 1990-91. Since the facts and the question involved in these matters are identical, we propose to decide both these appeals against the two common orders as aforesaid by this common judgment and order as under.
3. We have heard learned counsel Sh. Bhandawat and gone through the question as was framed by the court while admitting Appeal No. 7 of 2000 on August 18, 2000. The question framed by the court was as under :
“Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing the Deputy Commissioner to recalculate the penalty under Section 271D only on the amount accepted during the year and that too on the amount which exceeds Rs. 20,000 in contravention of the unambiguous provisions of Section 271D(1) and Section 269SS of the Act of 1961 ?”
4. Having gone through the provisions of Section 269SS with regard to the mode of taking and accepting certain loans and deposits and Section 271D with regard to the penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 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 Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS, the permissible amount of Rs. 20,000 has to be adjusted.
5. In this view of the matter, we find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while passing these orders has not committed any illegality in remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of the Range. The Tribunal has passed innocuous order that the matter should be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner Range, who will recalculate the penalty. In view of the finding given in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This order of remand as has been passed by the Income-tax Tribunal appears to be in order to us, does not warrant any interference and the concerned Deputy Commissioner 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 Section 269SS.
6. With the observations as aforesaid both these appeals are disposed of.
