2023 (8) TMI 1094 - AT - Income Tax

Invalid Penalties Quashed under Section 271D and 271E for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10

Shri Umakant Sharma Versus JCIT Ratlam

The penalties imposed under Section 271D for A.Y. 2008-09 and under Sections 271D and 271E for A.Y. 2009-10 were found to be invalid by the Tribunal due ... Penalty u/s 271D - limitation period for the penalty levied - Penalty levied which is after 8 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration - Absence of the assessment order or proceedings in the case of assessee - HELD THAT:- The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter- XXI has been provided by considering all possible situation where the assessment order or other order is subject matter of appeal of the order is revised under section 263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, pre supposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these proceedings. In absence of assessment in the case of the assessee the initiation of penalty is not valid and further when the satisfaction for initiation of the penalty on the part of the AO is absent in the case of the assessee then the penalty levied u/s 271D is not valid. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jain Laxmi Rice Mills [2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act the order of levy of penalty is not valid. As decided in Vijayaben G. Zalavadia [2022 (5) TMI 1572 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] held impugned penalty under Section 271E is not permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue. Hence, the same is not found to be sustainable. Therefore, it is pre-requisite condition that the initiation of penalty 271D/271E of the Act, there must be assessment proceedings or proceeding arising from assessment order are pending in the case of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act without any assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of Penalty under Section 271D for A.Y. 2008-092. Validity of Penalty under Section 271D and 271E for A.Y. 2009-10Summary:1. Validity of Penalty under Section 271D for A.Y. 2008-09:The assessee appealed against the penalty of Rs. 6 lacs imposed under Section 271D for receiving a cash loan, arguing that the penalty was invalid due to the absence of an assessment order and the delay in penalty imposition. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied eight years after the end of the assessment year, and highlighted that Section 275 presupposes the existence of assessment proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills, the Tribunal held that in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO and without any assessment proceedings, the penalty under Section 271D was invalid and quashed it.2. Validity of Penalty under Section 271D and 271E for A.Y. 2009-10:For A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee faced penalties under Sections 271D and 271E for taking and repaying a cash loan of Rs. 4 lacs. The Tribunal found that the facts were identical to A.Y. 2008-09, with no return of income filed and no assessment proceedings initiated. Following the same rationale as for A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal concluded that the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were invalid due to the absence of assessment proceedings and satisfaction recording, and thus quashed both penalties.Conclusion:The appeals for A.Y. 2008-09 under Section 271D and for A.Y. 2009-10 under Sections 271D and 271E were allowed, and the penalties were quashed.