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

2024 (6) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. Accordingl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act. In response, the assessee furnished the information and on verification of the information submitted / furnished during the assessment proceedings as well as on examining the return filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO accepted the return filed by the assessee and assessed the total income at Rs. 19,60,767/- and passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 17/12/2019. Subsequently, the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Vijayawada vide notice dated 23/03/2021 initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act by holding that in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the assessee has received Rs. 82,62,000/- in cash towards sale consideration of immovable property vide different sale deeds. Fu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pholding the levy of imposition of penalty u/s. 271D amounting to Rs. 82,62,000/- by the AO. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued for levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act without proper satisfaction is invalid before the eyes of law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed u/s. 271D of the Act for the AY 2017-18 consequent upon the invalid notice is also to be treated as invalid before eyes of law. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the transactions are purely business transactions whereby the provisions of section 269SS are not applicable. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nalty levied u/s. 271D may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and argued in support of the same. Further, the Ld. DR submitted that the penalty-imposed u/s. 271D of the Act is independent of assessment proceedings completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as the penalty u/s. 271D was imposed for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. DR pleaded that decision of the Ld. Revenue Authorities may be upheld. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. In the instant case, the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. AO a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reference: As pointed out above, insofar as, fresh assessment order is concerned, there was no satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceeding under section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. 7. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the penalty order of the Ld. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant .....

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