Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and various Tribunals held that in the absence of recording of satisfaction in the assessment order for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D/271E of the Act, the penalty order is bad in law. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [ 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] we hold that the penalty order passed under section 271D of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the same is quashed. Ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A No. 815/Del/2022 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2022 - Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Prad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntenable. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submissions filed by the appellant on the Income Tax Portal (National Faceless Appeal Centre) and no reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant violating the principle of natural justice hence order is bad, arbitrary and untenable. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by ignoring the ground of reasonable cause for such failure and transaction exigency denying the relief u/s 273B while imposing the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the penalty order without appreciating the fact that cash accepted was only Rs.40,000/- whereas penalty imposed of Rs.90000/-. 5. It is therefore praye .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee being the owner in possession of agricultural land bearing Khasra no. 918/592 area measuring 0.0176 hectare and Khasra No. 920/592 area measuring 0.5424 hectare (Total Land Sold 0.56 Hectare) situated at village Dhanpur, Bhagli Sindhlan, Tehsil Jalor District, Rajasthan has sold the said land to Sri Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Sri Bajrang Prasad Agarwal for a total consideration of Rs.48,90,000. However, assessee did not offer to tax the said amount of Rs.48,90,000/- under the head capital gain on the sale of property in her income tax return for the reason that the said lands do not fall within the purview of capital asset u/s 2(14), being an agriculture land and the assessee showed it as agricultural income in the return file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0-12-2019 imposing penalty. Aggrieved by the order assessee filed the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) also passed an ex-parte order without considering the submission and replies filed by the assessee and without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is reasonable cause in accepting token amount of advance in cash from the purchaser as the assessee and the purchaser wanted to assure the deal. The ld. Counsel submits that it is a customary practice to give Bayana (token money) to get assurance that both the parties are agreed on terms of discussion for execution of deal at a later point of time. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... could be levied is only Rs.40,000/- and not Rs.90,000/-. 9. The ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 10. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. We find considerable force in the contention of the assessee that the penalty order passed under section 271D of the Act is void ab initio and bad in law as there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as to the contravention of provisions of section 269SS while framing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and there is no satisfaction recorded for initiation of proceedings under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates