9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty proceedings under section 271D are independent of the assessment proceedings. In that case, in the assessment order passed in pursuance to the remand no satisfaction was recorded for initiating the proceedings u/s 271E. Though the AO stated for initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The penalty proceeding was quashed on the ground that in absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO the penalty can not be imposed.
In the case in hand the DCIT had only recorded satisfaction for proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and no satisfaction was recorded to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271D.
The notice issued u/s 271E and the proceedings in pursuance thereto are quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke of convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1102/2025. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notices dated 01.10.2024, 03.01.2025, 13.01.2025 issued under Section 271E of the Act of 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-2013. 3. The brief facts are that search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner. The proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 culminated in re-assessment order dated 12.03.2024 resulting in additions of Rs.9,90,000/- and Rs.23,785/- under Sections 69A and 69C of the Act of 1961 respectively. The order was passed after approval from the Additional Commissioner of the Income Tax (hereinafter 'ACIT'). On 01.10.2024 notice was issued to the petitioner for imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the penalty proceedings under Section 271E. 7. The reliance on the reference made by the DCIT to ACIT on 01.08.2024 shall not enhance case of the department as the reference was after the conclusion of reassessment proceedings by the DCIT. 8. The satisfaction dated 24.09.2024 recorded by the ACIT cannot be equated with the satisfaction to be recorded in the reassessment proceedings by the concerned AO. 9. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue as to whether the penalty proceedings under section 271D are independent of the assessment proceedings. In that case, in the assessment order passed in pursuance to the remand no satisfaction was recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 271E. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
