Penalty under section 271D set aside where AO failed to record satisfaction of breach under section 269SS

HC set aside levy of penalty under section 271D, holding that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction that section 269SS was violated and thus effectively accepted the assessee's explanation denying cash loan. Absent recorded satisfaction by the AO, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D. The court relied on controlling SC precedent and concluded there was no occasion to sustain the penalty where the primary authority did not find a breach of section 269SS.

---

---

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act without recording satisfaction.
2. Challenge to penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners contested the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, alleging that it was levied without the Assessing Officer recording any satisfaction regarding the penalty. The petitioner argued that no evidence existed to prove that cash loans were accepted, as all transactions were conducted through banking channels. The Assessing Officer's addition was primarily based on a letter dated 02-06-2014 from the petitioner acknowledging a loan, but no violation of Sec. 269SS was found. The court held that without a recorded finding of a violation, the penalty could not be justified. The absence of a finding implied acceptance of the petitioner's explanation, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was unjustified.

2. The court emphasized the necessity of the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. It was highlighted that without such satisfaction, the superior officer, like the Joint Commissioner, cannot levy the penalty. Referring to the decision in CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, the court set aside the penalty order under Section 271D, emphasizing the importance of the Assessing Officer's role in determining violations before penalty imposition.

3. The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued alternative remedies like an appeal instead of filing a Writ Petition directly. Citing various legal precedents, the respondents contended that the Writ Petition was not maintainable without exhausting other available remedies. However, the court, after reviewing the material on record, upheld the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, leading to the allowance of the Writ Petition challenging the penalty.

4. Ultimately, the court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed as a result of the judgment.

---