2025 (1) TMI 612 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s.271D - cash deposit during demonetization period in the assessee s bank account - HELD THAT - This Tribunal in several cases T Shiju v. JCIT 2019 (6) TMI 603 - ITAT CHENNAI has held that recording of satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order regarding the violation of the provisions of section 269SS is a mandatory requirement for valid initiation of penalty proceedings us 271D of the Act and no penalty could be levied if the AO failed to record such satisfaction in the assessment order. In the present case, on perusal of the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 31.10.2019, it is seen that no such satisfaction has been recorded by the AO in the said assessment order. Hence, having regard to the failure of the AO to record his satisfaction in the assessment order with regard to the violation of the provisions of Sec. 269SS, it is held that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act have not been validly initiated and consequently, the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT is held to be bad in Law. Assessee appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for violation of Section 269SS, was validly levied on the assessee.
Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded the necessary satisfaction regarding the violation of Section 269SS in the assessment order, which is a prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Penalty under Section 271D

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:
Section 271D of the Income Tax Act imposes a penalty for accepting loans or deposits in contravention of Section 269SS, which mandates that such transactions should be conducted through account payee cheques or bank drafts. The precedents considered include the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills and the Telangana High Court's ruling in Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari v. JCIT.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to record satisfaction regarding the violation of Section 269SS in the assessment order as a condition precedent for invoking penalty under Section 271D. The absence of such satisfaction renders the penalty proceedings invalid.
Key Evidence and Findings:
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record any satisfaction regarding the violation of Section 269SS in the assessment order dated 31.10.2019, which is crucial for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D.
Application of Law to Facts:
Applying the principles from the cited precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained due to the AO's failure to record the necessary satisfaction in the assessment order.
Treatment of Competing Arguments:
The Tribunal considered the respondent's reliance on the Kerala High Court decision in Grihalaxmi Vision, which suggested that the AO need not record satisfaction in a specific manner. However, the Tribunal favored the Supreme Court's ruling in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, which mandates such satisfaction.
Conclusions:
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were not validly initiated due to the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO, and thus, the penalty order was deemed bad in law.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:
"No penalty u/s 271E could be levied in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order."
"It is the bounden duty of an adjudicating authority...to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court."
Core Principles Established:
The necessity for the AO to record satisfaction in the assessment order for the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D is a mandatory requirement.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order under Section 271D was invalidated due to the procedural lapse of not recording satisfaction by the AO.

The Tribunal's decision underscores the critical procedural requirement of recording satisfaction in the assessment order before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D, aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards must be adhered to in tax penalty cases, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal standards.

← Previous Next →