2024 (6) TMI 358 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - contravention of section 269SS - Non-recording of satisfaction - HELD THAT - AO has not recorded any satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D. It is a trait law that for the purpose of imposing penalty, satisfaction should be recorded by the AO in the assessment order as to imposition of penalty. Non-recording of satisfaction is fatal. In this connection, it is pertinent to make a reference to the decision of Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT wherein initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271E of the Act, it was held that recording of satisfaction is mandatory for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271E of the Act. Section 271E of the Act is pari materia to section 271D. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT we are of the considered opinion that the penalty order of the Ld. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, deserves to be quashed as the AO has neither recorded satisfaction nor mentioned anything regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings while passing the assessment order in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we hereby set-aside the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC and delete the penalty levied u/s. 271D of the Act in the case of the assessee. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for contravention of section 269SS.
2. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated without proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer.
3. Applicability of section 269SS to business transactions involving sale proceeds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the penalty order under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for receiving cash towards sale consideration of immovable property in contravention of section 269SS. The assessee argued that the penalty was unjust as the amounts received were from sale proceeds on which tax was paid. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not mention penalty proceedings in the assessment order, leading to a lack of satisfaction for imposing the penalty. The Tribunal noted that recording satisfaction is mandatory for penalty initiation, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City. The penalty order was quashed as the AO failed to record satisfaction, and the penalty was deleted.

2. The issue of the validity of penalty proceedings without proper satisfaction was crucial in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that satisfaction must be recorded by the AO for the initiation of penalty proceedings. The absence of such satisfaction rendered the penalty order invalid, following the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's decision to quash the penalty order was based on the fundamental requirement of recording satisfaction before imposing penalties under the Income Tax Act.

3. The Tribunal also addressed the applicability of section 269SS to business transactions involving sale proceeds. The assessee contended that the transactions were business-related and not subject to section 269SS. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the penalty was quashed based on the lack of satisfaction for penalty initiation. However, the argument raised by the assessee regarding the nature of the transactions was noted in the appeal grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order under section 271D due to the absence of recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with procedural requirements, such as recording satisfaction, before imposing penalties under the Income Tax Act.