Retrospective use of amended "specified sum" rejected, as penalty under section 271D could not rest on a later definition.

Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained for assessment year 2013-14 because the Revenue relied on the amended definition of "specified sum" in section 269SS, but that amendment was substituted by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 01.04.2023. As the penal action depended entirely on the later-expanded definition, it could not be applied retrospectively to the earlier year. The foundation of the penalty was therefore legally unsustainable, and the penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D could be sustained for assessment year 2013-14 on the basis of the amended definition of "specified sum" in section 269SS.

Analysis: The penalty was founded on the view that cash receipts exceeding the prescribed limit attracted section 269SS because they fell within the expression "specified sum" in explanation (iv). The governing explanation was substituted by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 01.04.2023. Since the assessment year in question was 2013-14, the amended definition could not be invoked to fasten penalty for the earlier period. The foundation of the penalty was therefore held to be legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271D for assessment year 2013-14 was deleted and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment expanding the scope of "specified sum" in section 269SS cannot be applied to sustain penalty for a prior assessment year when the penal action rests entirely on that later amendment.

---