9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds: 1. The impugned Order u/s. 250 of the Act dated: 27-06- 2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (NFAC) is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessees appeal and confirming the Penalty imposed of Rs. 30,00,000/- by NFAC vide order dated 27-06-2024 without appreciating the fact that the NFAC has assumed the jurisdiction on the basis of alleged Show Cause Notice dated 07-09 2021 alleged to have been issued by JCIT Range -1 Tirupathi who had no jurisdiction in view of Faceless Penalty Scheme launched on 12-01-2021. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order confirming the Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act dated 28- 01-2022 without appreciating the fact that the Penalty so levied was barred by limitation of time. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order confirming the Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act dated 28- 01-2022 placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi vision vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.83 and 86 of 2014 passed on 07-08- 2015 without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions. 11. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 to 7, it is further urged that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order confirming the Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act dated 28 01-2022 without appreciating the fact that no draft assessment order was provided to the assessee as required under the Faceless Scheme. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 12.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 15,00,360/-. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 1.12.2019 by accepting the returned income. Thereafter, a show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 273D of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 7.9.2021 was issued and served on the assessee and called the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied for contravention of section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the said show cause notice, the Jt./Addl./Commissioner of Income Tax, observed that during the financial year relevant to A.Y 2017-18, the appellant has sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 30.00 lakhs vide copy of sale deed No.3113/2016 dated 25/06/2016 and received the entire consideration in cash. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and upheld the penalty levied u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction during assessment proceedings before initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that even the Assessing Officer who initiated penalty proceedings has not recorded satisfaction as required under law before initiating penalty. Therefore, the whole penalty proceedings become vitiate and liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the consideration received towards sale of property cannot be considered as specified sum as defined u/s 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus, for the purpose of section 271D, said transaction cannot be considered as contravention of provisions of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation cannot be brushed aside. 7. Apart from this, the relevant word specified sum has been defined under explanation (iv) to sec on 269SS, which is reproduced as under : (iv) specified sum means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place. 8. The meaning of the specified sum has also been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shri. R. Dhinagharan (HUF), ITA No. 3329/Chny/2019, dated 28/12/2023, wherein the ITAT took the view that the ' sum specified' as per Explanation to Sec on 269SS of the Act, only applicable for advance receivable, namely, 'as advance or otherwise' means advance can be in any manner, and therefore, this provision will not apply to the transaction that happens when the final payment at the me of registration of sale deed and payment takes place before sub-registrar for registration of property. Relevant part of para-No.12.1 of the decision of the ITAT is as under : From the above provisions, Memorandum explaining the intention of amendment by Finance Bill, 2015 including the definition of 'sum s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
