2023 (1) TMI 270 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - transaction of loan or deposit to attract the penal consequences of Section 269SS - in assessment order, initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - AO though, at the time of passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, there is no whisper in the assessment order regrading initiation or satisfaction about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D - Add. CIT levied penalty vide order - We find that the Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT held that wherein no satisfaction was recorded for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271E, the impugned penalty order passed under said Section deserve to be set aside. Considering the fact that there is no satisfaction about initiation of penalty under Section 271D, therefore, respectfully following Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), the penalty levied by Addl. CIT vide his order dated 29/09/2019 is quashed/set aside. In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. Considering the fact that we have quashed the penalty order u/s 271D on legal ground on the basis of decision of Hon ble Apex Court, therefore, consideration and adjudication of the various plea of assessee has become academic. In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-16.

Analysis:
1. Consolidation of Appeals: Two assessees filed separate appeals against penalty orders under Section 271D. The appeals were directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising from penalty levied for AY 2015-16. The appeals were clubbed due to similar facts to avoid conflicting decisions.

2. Factual Background: The assessee, an individual, declared income for AY 2015-16. During scrutiny, it was noted that the assessee made cash payments for purchasing agricultural land, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS of the Act.

3. Penalty Imposition: The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalties under Section 271D after finding the assessee made payments in cash against statutory provisions. The action was upheld on appeal. The assessee challenged this penalty before the Tribunal.

4. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee, an agriculturist, explained the cash payments as gifts received from family members and not loans. The genuineness of the transactions was not questioned. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that agricultural transactions between agriculturists do not attract penalties under Section 269SS.

5. Revenue's Position: The revenue supported the penalty orders, emphasizing that the assessee violated Section 269SS by accepting cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit.

6. Judicial Scrutiny: The Tribunal questioned the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D, noting the absence of recorded satisfaction during the assessment. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty due to the lack of proper initiation.

7. Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 271D. The decision was based on the legal ground of insufficient initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal's ruling rendered further arguments and considerations on the matter academic.

8. Consistency in Ruling: Considering the principle of consistency, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the second assessee, aligning with the decision made for the first assessee.

9. Final Verdict: Both appeals were allowed, and the penalties under Section 271D for AY 2015-16 were quashed based on the legal grounds identified by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to quash the penalties imposed under Section 271D, emphasizing the importance of proper initiation and satisfaction in penalty proceedings.