TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has raised following grounds of appeal: [1] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when the penalty order as passed under section 271E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation of time. [2] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when no proper satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer. [3] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4,00,000/- 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not get relief. It was contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that in view of the settled judicial precedence no penalty was leviable as no assessment proceedings were pending in the case of assessee and so there was no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO to initiate penalty. It was also submitted that penalty levied for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2009-10 u/s 271D of the Act and for A.Y.2008-09 u/s 271E were of the Act deleted by Ld. CIT(A) accepting the assessee's contention that no cash loan was taken/repaid. However, in the instant case Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271E of the Act observing as follows: "5. I have gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny loan from Mr. Ramesh Chand Upadhya so there remains no possibility of repayment of alleged cash loan, no cross examination was done between the assessee and Mr. Ramesh Chand Upadhya and Revenue authorities in assessee's own case deleted the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act which clearly proves that no cash loan was taken. Secondly, it was contended that on legality also the assessee deserves to succeed as there was no pending assessment in the case of assessee and in view of the decision of Coordinate Bench Chandigarh in the case of Baldev Singh vs. ACIT (2018) 93 Taxman.com 212 impugned penalty deserves to be deleted. Reliance was also placed on the following decision mentioned in the synopsis:- i. CIT Vs Manohar Lal Thakral ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....form of penalty proposal to ITO, Jhabua on 09.06.2016 for levying penalty u/s 271E of the Act on the cash loan repayment of Rs. 5,50,000/- by cash. Though it was contended that neither any loan was taken nor any cash loan was repaid in contravention of provision of u/s 269T of the Act, assessee failed to find any favour from both the lower authorities. 8. We further note that the statement of the assessee was recorded on oath on 01.02.2016 u/s 131(1) of the Act wherein repeatedly assessee denied the charge of having taken or repaid any cash loan from Ramesh Chand Upadhya. Further penalty u/s 271D of the Act was levied on the assessee for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2009-10 and also u/s 271E for A.Y. 2008-09 and Ld. CIT(A) decided in favour of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e levy of penalty for failure to perform statutory obligation prescribed under the Act is a matter of discretion of the authorities to be exercised judicially and on consideration of relevant circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of levy of penalty. Imposition of penalty in the given set of circumstances is not mandatory but discretionary and in order to exercise its power on levy of penalty under the respective section/s, primary conditions is that the proceedings in respect of the said assessee for the captioned assessment year should be pending before the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that the given set of facts and circumstances merits the initiation of penalty proceedings in the case. In the f....