9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to the issue. 5. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 31.08.2017 in the case of Shri Naveen Kumar Sachdeva and his brother Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva. It is interesting to note that Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva had expired on 07.11.2016 and the warrant was executed in the name of Smt. Ira Wasson, wife of Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva, in the capacity of legal heir of the deceased. 6. During the course of search proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva, through his company M/s Ronnie Finance Limited accepted and disbursed loan in cash from F.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17. The Assessing Officer made an assessment on the assessee as legal heir of Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva by making additions u/s 69A as follows in the A.Ys under consideration : 2013-14 - Rs. 30,45,670/- 2014-15 - Rs. 16,49.05,122/- 2015-16 - Rs. 36,75,63,873/- 2016-17 - Rs. 42,81,65,845/- 2017-18 - Rs. 1,78,32,38,718/- 7. Apart from making additions in these years u/s 69A of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s 271E and 271D of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269ST of the Act. Subsequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of section 269SS of the Act. The appellant is in appeal aggrieved with the Imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- 8. The primary Issue for consideration in the impugned case is whether or not the appellant was the legal representative of Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva or not. The Issue has been decided by the appellate order no. CIT (A), Delhi-23/10097/2012- 13 dated: 04.08.2023 for A.Y 2013-14 in the case of the appellant while deciding the quantum addition. The facts of the case as regarding her status remain identical. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant explained before the Assessing Officer that she was not the legal representative of Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva. However, the Assessing Officer held that she was successor within the meaning of Hindu Succession Act. During the course of Impugned penalty proceedings also, the appellant explained that she was not the legal representative of her late husband. However, the Range Head (Additional CIT, Central Range-1, Delhi) relled upon and followed the earlier assessment order wherein the appellant was held the successor of Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva within the meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Where a person dies, his legal representatives shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased, (2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1),- (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased; (b) any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative; and (c) all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (3) The legal representative of the deceased shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an assessee. (4) Every legal representative shall be personally liable for any tax payable by him in his capacity as legal representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sachdeva. 22. As the appellant was not the legal representative of Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act cannot be initiated or levied on her for the violation made by the company (Ronnie Finance Limited) in which the appellant was neither the shareholder nor the director. The present penalty order u/s 271D of the Act is treated as ultra vires and against the provision of Income-tax Act. 23. As it is held that she was not the legal representative of Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva, therefore, other grounds of the appeal are not required to be adjudicated. 24. On this account only, the levy of penalty on the appellant u/s 271D of the Act is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed." 13. We find for a fact that the amount of loan/deposit/sum was taken and accepted by the company M/s Ronnie Finance Company Ltd. We find that the MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) Portal shows that the concerned entity had three directors i.e. (i). Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva, (ii). Smt. Shelly Narang and (iii). Smt. Usha Rani Sachdeva. It is not disputed that neither the assessee was a shareholder nor director in the concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
