TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tural justice and for many more other reasons. 2. The penalty order passed U/s 271D is barred by limitation u/s 275 of the Income Tax Act, The order passed is illegal, erroneous and liable to quashed. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, ld. AO has erred by levying penalty without initiating the penalty in the Assessment order and CIT (A) has erred by confirming penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- U/s 271D. The penalty levied is unjustified, illegal or excessive. 4. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. AO has erred by levying penalty without initiating the penalty in the Assessment order and CIT(A) has erred by confirming penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- U/s 271D. The penalty levied is unjustified, illegal or excessive." 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he nature of advance received against sale of goods to M/s Om Sai Stone Industries but it is a deposit/loan received by the assessee as cash credit, as the goods have been sold vide bill dated 24.05.2012. Therefore, after examining the material on record, it is held that the assessee had accepted the above-said deposit/loan received by the assessee as cash credit, as the goods have been sold vide bill dated 24.05.2012. Therefore, after examining the material on record, it is held that the assessee had accepted the above said deposit/loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, without any reasonable cause." 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal and the penalty so levied wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no. 2829/CHNY/2018 dated 07.06.2019). 6. It was further submitted that the assessee has received cash advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- from M/s Om Sai Stone Industries in the last quarter of the financial year 2011-12 and thereafter, sale was made in the subsequent quarter in the next financial year vide sale bill dated 24.05.2012 for Rs. 4,58,430/-. It was submitted that the AO has levied the penalty on the sole ground that sale has been made in the next financial year, however, there is no provision in law which compels that advances received from customer against which sale not could be made till end of financial year is to be treated as loans/deposits. It was submitted that in the case of sale of high value machinery, it is a prevailing in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom M/s Shri Om Sai Stones Industries in violation of provisions of section 269SS and accordingly, a proposal was sent to the Add. CIT, Range 1, Kota vide letter No 107 dated 30.05.2016 for initiating the penalty proceedings. It was submitted that the said proposal reflects the mind and the satisfaction of the Assessing officer and basis the same, the proposal was sent to the Add. CIT, Range 1, Kota for initiation of penalty proceedings. It was further submitted that unlike provisions of section 271(1)(c), there is no requirement to record the satisfaction by the Assessing officer which has to be discernable from the assessment order and more so, where the Assessing officer doesn't have the jurisdiction to levy the penalty. Further, he r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) and the Coordinate Bench in case of Shri T Shiju vs JCIT (supra) are distinguishable on facts as in those cases, it was the same authority i.e, the Assessing officer, who has passed the assessment order u/s 143(3), who has subsequently levied the penalty and in that factual context, penalty levied was deleted on account of lack of satisfaction and thus, doesn't support the case of the assessee. Therefore, the contention so advanced by the ld AR in this regard cannot be accepted. 9. On merits, we find that there is no dispute that the assessee has supplied electrical goods to M/s Shri Om Sai Stones Industries vide sale bill no. 237 dated 24.05.2012 for a sum of Rs. 4,58,430/-. It is also no....