9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Revenue : Shri R. Kumaran, DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 28/06/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ( Ld. CIT(A) ), in the case of Narender Goud Tigulla ( the assessee ) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. In this appeal the assessee is a challenging the legality and validity of the order passed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) on the ground that recording of satisfaction is a prerequisite condition for initiation of penalty under section 271D of the Act, but in this case no such satisfaction was recorded prior to the initiation of the penalty proceedings nor passing the penalty order. Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Sultan begum vs. ACIT in ITA No. 514 /Hyd/ 2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 by order dated 18/12/2023 and Sh. Umakant Sharma vs. JCIT in ITA No. 364 to 366/IND/2022 by order dated 19/7/2023, which was rendered following the binding precedent of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Lakshmi rice Mills 379 ITR 521. Learned AR also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had sold immovable properties for a total sale consideration of Rs. 92,13,000.00 out of which he had accepted cash to the tune of Rs. 87,80,000.00 which was in violation of Section 269SS of the Act, attracting penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 17. Before we advert to the reply submitted by the petitioner, we may mention that under Section 269SS of the Act, no person shall take or accept from any other person (referred to as a depositor) any loan or deposit or any specified sum otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, if the amount of such loan or deposit or specified sum is twenty thousand rupees or more. However, as per the first proviso, the rigor of Section 269SS is not applicable to the Government, banking company, post office savings bank or cooperative bank etc. As per the second proviso, this provision would also not be applicable where both the depositor and the receiver are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act. 18. Section 271D of the Act deals with penalty for fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed by the [Joint] Commissioner.] 21. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 271E of the Act provides that if a person repays any loan or deposit or specified advance referred to in Section 269T of the Act otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. Sub-section (2) clarifies that any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 22. From an analysis of Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, it is seen that both the provisions are pari materia to each other. While Section 271D of the Act would be attracted on a person accepting loan or deposit or specified sum in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act, penalty under Section 271E of the Act would be imposable on a person who makes or repays the loan or deposit or specified advance in contravention of Section 269T. Therefore, in a way, the two provisions are complimentary to each other. 23. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra), Supreme Court considered the question as to whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act is independent of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner. He has also referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. Mac Data Ltd.3 wherein it was observed that assessing officer has to satisfy himself as to whether penalty proceedings should be initiated or not. Assessing officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (1 supra). In the said decision as extracted above, Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the High Court holding that satisfaction must be recorded in the original assessment order for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act. We have already discussed above that provisions of Section 271E and 271D of the Act are in pari materia. When there is a decision of the Supreme Court, it is the bounden duty of an adjudicating authority, be it an income tax authority or any other civil authority or for that matter any court in the country, to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court. 26. Art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
