I. T. A. No. 710 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 710 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 22, 2008. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh .... Appellant Vs. Shri Waheguru Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench `B', Chandigarh dated 17.09.2007 passed in I.T.A. No.238/Chandi/2006 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalties imposed under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially since the assessee had repaid loans in cash in violation of the provisions of I. T. A. No. 710 of 2008 2 sections 269T of the Act ?” 2. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271E on the allegation that the assessee had made repayment of cash loan in violation of Section 269T of the Act. The penalty was thereafter levied. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal set aside the same. The Tribunal observed as under :- “In the present case also the assessee did not act deliberately in defiance of law and his conduct was not dishonest, neither he acted in conscious disregard of its obligation, since the transactions were genuine and entered due to business exigency and even if there was any breach of the provisions of the Act i.e. the loan exceeding Rs.20,000/- were not received and paid through cheques, this breach was a venial breach and flows from a bonafide belief. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to the penalties.” 3. We have heard leaned counsel for the Revenue. 4. We are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. 5. No substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 22, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE