Penalty u/s 269SS held to be not leviable where , the assessee a reputed dealer in fast moving goods in order to get encashed the cheques issued to various companies, accepted the cash in his bank account from various persons also soon repaid the same . The assessee did not use the CC limit to save interest cost. – Amar Nath [05-10-2015] High Cour of Himachal Pradesh ITA 4014/2013 Case laws relied upon: Asstt. Director of Inspection Investigation v. A.B. Shanthi, (2002) 6 SCC 259 Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); CIT v. Kharaiti Lal and Co., (2004) 270 ITR445 (P&H); CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, (2008) 302ITR 201 (Raj); CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co., (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad); CIT v. Indore Plastics P. Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 163(MP); CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad); CIT v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.,(1988) 172 ITR 321 (SC); CIT v. Balaji Traders, (2008) 303 ITR 312 (Mad); CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.,(2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad); and CIT v. Ratna Agencies,(2006) 284 ITR 609 (Mad