In  tax Audit  report of the assessee the Auditor reported four payments have been made to persons specified under section 40A(2)(b) which exceeded qualifying limit of Rs. 5 crore, but it did not maintain documents and information in terms of section 92D. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271AA of the Act. On appeal the CIT (A) up held that penalty  relying on the definition of term ‘relative’ in Explanation to section 56(2)(v) of the Act. On appeal the Tribunal held that  term relative as given in section 2(41), which will prevail for understanding connotation of term ‘relative’ under section 40A(2)(b) over one given in Explanation to section 56(2)(v) of the Act. On the facts since assessee’s transactions were not with relatives in term of definition of section 2(41), same would not qualify as SDT under section 92BA and there could be no question of any penalty under section 271AA of the Act. Only transactions with husband, wife, brother or sister or any lineal ascendant or descendant of individual will get enveloped under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. (AY. 2011-12)