9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion recording regarding penalty proceedings under Section 271E, in the assessment order was recorded while passing the assessment order, no penalty could be levied. We further find that by following the order of Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [ 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in The Nizar Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd [ 2019 (12) TMI 1569 - ITAT SURAT] also held that when no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty, no penalty under Section 271D could be levied. The order of Hon ble Supreme Court, which is binding precedent by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and respectfully following the same the penalty order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda in remand proceedings though it was with him for seven months and the Assessing Officer at Surat though it was with him for two years and therefore, the details prepared by the appellant remained uncontroverted. 4. The appellant further submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming penalty on amounts received and shown in the seized cash book/ledger were cheques numbers were mentioned. 5. The appellant further submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty on amounts which were not received at all. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the plea of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) 229 ITR 383 (SC), West Bengal State Electricity Board ( 198 CTR-122 (Cal), Bharat Rice Mill- 148 Taxman 145 (All), Dalmia Dairy Industries Limited 319 ITR 2 (SC) . 5. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee has raised second additional ground of appeal for the first time before the Tribunal. No such factual objection was ever raised by assessee either at the time of levying penalty under Section 271D dated 20/06/2015 or before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Tribunal in first round of appeal. The ld. CIT-DR subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of appeal raised by assessee is admitted for adjudication. Now adverting to the facts of the case. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the present case was completed on 31/12/2003 under Section 158BC r.w.s. 158BG/144 of the Act in making total addition of Rs. 1.09 crore. The Assessing Officer at the time of passing the assessment order has not initiated any kind of penalty. Subsequent of passing the assessment order, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings vide reference dated 14/05/2004 for initiation of penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS in respect of various deposits/ loan received by the assessee in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/-, during the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o satisfaction was recorded for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271E, the impugned penalty order passed under said Section deserve to be set aside. The ld. AR submits that Section 271E and 271D are having similar criteria, one penalty relates to making payment and the other relates to taking or accepting loan in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in cash in contravention of Section 269SS. The ld. AR further submits that the Coordinate Bench of Surat Tribunal while following the order of Hon ble Apex Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), deleted the similar penalty under Section 271D. 9. The ld. AR further submits that he has already filed his submission on first additional ground of appeal which relates to time limit for passin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), while considering the similar questions of law held that when no satisfaction recording regarding penalty proceedings under Section 271E, in the assessment order was recorded while passing the assessment order, no penalty could be levied. We further find that by following the order of Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in The Nizar Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs JCIT in ITA No. 3157/Ahd/2015 dated 13/12/2019 also held that when no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty, no penalty under Section 271D could be levied. The order of Hon ble Supreme Court, which is binding precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
