2026 (2) TMI 379 - SCH - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS requires Assessing Officer's recorded satisfaction before Joint Commissioner may levy.

A penalty under the Income Tax regime for breach of prohibition on certain cash transactions requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction based ... Penalty u/s 271D - violation of the provisions of Sec. 269SS - mandation of recording any satisfaction in the assessment order - exercise of jurisdiction by Joint Commissioner - gross delay of 350 days in filing the Special Leave Petition - HC [2024 (10) TMI 1768 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that satisfaction of the AO is required to be recorded because the same officer, who passed the assessment order would not be levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Unless the AO who is the primary authority, based on the material before it, during assessment proceedings, arrives at a finding that there has been a violation of the provisions, like in the present case, of Section 269SS, there will not be any occasion to the Joint Commissioner, who is not the Assessing Officer, to exercise his jurisdiction to levy Penalty u/s 271D. HELD THAT:- Delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. Even otherwise, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits. Outcome: Special Leave Petition dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.