9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act on 31.03.2022. AO in his order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act for both the A.Ys has recorded penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be initiated separately. AO, however, has not recorded any satisfaction to initiate penalty u/s 271D of the Act for either of the A.Ys and thereby failed to adhere to the mandate of law as laid down in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [ 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] We do not find these to be fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act. We accordingly, delete the penalty so levied u/s 271D in both the A.Ys and allow both the appeals. Appeal of assessee allowed. - Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice President, And Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-16 to 2017-18 was taken up under scrutiny assessment u/s 147 of the Act to verify the surrendered income, investment made and expenses claimed regarding construction of 24 flats. 7. Assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.12.2019 at Rs. 34,69,500/- for A.Y 2016-17 and Rs. 23,72,400 for A.Y 2017-18. Notice u/s 271D was issued to the assessee for both the A.Ys on 30.03.2022 to show cause why an order imposing penalty on him should not be made u/s 271D of the Act. 8. In response, the assessee filed reply which was not found tenable by the JCIT who imposed penalty of Rs. 93,80,000/- in A.Y 2016-17 and Rs. 44,00,000/- in A.Y 2017-18 u/s 271D of the Act. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271D is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. 15. A similar issue came up before the ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Shri Bhowmick Raj Singh in ITA No. 128/RPR/2016 dated 02.01.2024 wherein it was held as under: Considering the fact that the issue before us is no more res integra in light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra), therefore, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, the penalty imposed by the Jt.CIT u/s. 271D of the Act cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down for want of valid assumption of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
