2025 (1) TMI 1232 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D Invalid Due to Quashed Assessment Order u/s 153C; Procedural Errors Cited.

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained because the underlying assessment order ... Penalty u/s 271D - acceptance of a cash loan in contravention of Section 269SS - HELD THAT:- Addition made in the assessment order passed u/s 153C was quashed by the CIT (A) on the basis of absence of valid satisfaction note and no incriminating material seized during the search. Accordingly, it was concluded that notice u/s 153C issued by the Assessing Officer for assessment year under consideration need to be treated as ab initio invalid and legally not sustainable and quashed. Since the penalty levied u/s 271D is against such additions made in the assessment order passed u/s 153C and the same was quashed, accordingly the penalty levied u/s 271D also does not survive. The similar issue was considered in the case of Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd. [2024 (7) TMI 87 - ITAT MUMBAI] - we are inclined to delete the penalty levied u/s 271D - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act for the acceptance of a cash loan in contravention of Section 269SS is sustainable when the underlying assessment order has been quashed as void ab initio.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe primary legal provisions involved are Section 271D, which imposes a penalty for contravening Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. Section 269SS prohibits the acceptance of loans or deposits in cash exceeding a specified limit to ensure transparency and prevent tax evasion. The penalty proceedings were initiated following an assessment order under Section 153C, which was subsequently quashed.The Tribunal relied on precedents, notably the decision in CIT vs. M/s. Jayalakshmi Rice Mills, where the Supreme Court held that if the reassessment order is void ab initio, the penalty proceedings based on such an order cannot survive.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted that the penalty under Section 271D is contingent upon the validity of the assessment order. Since the assessment order under Section 153C was quashed due to the absence of a valid satisfaction note and lack of incriminating material, the penalty proceedings based on this order could not be sustained.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal noted that the quantum addition made in the assessment order was quashed by the CIT (A) due to procedural deficiencies, specifically the absence of a valid satisfaction note and no incriminating material being seized. This rendered the notice issued under Section 153C invalid ab initio.Application of Law to FactsApplying the legal principles from the Jayalakshmi Rice Mills case, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271D could not survive the quashing of the assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedural invalidity of the assessment order directly impacted the sustainability of the penalty proceedings.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal considered the arguments from the Revenue, which contended that the penalty was levied on the merits of the case, independent of the technical quashing of the assessment order. However, the Tribunal found that the penalty's foundation was the quashed assessment order, and thus, the penalty could not be sustained.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 271D could not be upheld due to the invalidity of the underlying assessment order. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal ReasoningThe Tribunal stated, 'with the quashing/annulling of the reassessment order passed in the case of the assessee by the ITAT, the penalty initiated therein u/s. 271D did not survive.'Core Principles EstablishedThe judgment reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings under Section 271D cannot survive if the underlying assessment order is void ab initio. The procedural validity of the assessment is crucial for sustaining related penalty proceedings.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal determined that the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable due to the quashing of the assessment order under Section 153C. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.