TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal : "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the penalty u/s 271D of Rs. 6,95,60,000/- on the ground that the assessee company had not taken any loan from any person rather those persons had themselves made payments to the seller and land/shares were transferred in their names, But this not being the facts, there was an agreement executed between the parties of which the assessee is one of the party and cash payment was made by the assessee to the other party to the tune of Rs. 6,95,60,000/-The assessee to meet this expenditure raised loans and accepted the same in cash. It is immaterial whether the money was routed through the books of account of the assessee company or made directly b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 22.12.2016. The Ld. counsel for the assessee thereafter contended that since the order in which penalty proceedings had been initiated, had been held to be invalid and no further satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings, the said order levying penalty passed u/s 271D of the Act could not have been passed in the absence of any satisfaction by the Assessing Officer before levying the same. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT, Panchkula Vs. Jai Luxmi Rice Mills, Ambala City, (2015) 379 ITR 521(SC). 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, argued that the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court did not apply in the present set of fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpose of initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271E would also not survive and since there was no satisfaction recorded in the fresh assessment order passed regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act, penalty could not be levied in the absence of satisfaction for the same. The question before the Apex Court and the relevant findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as follows: " In these appeals, we are concerned with the question as to whether penalty proceeding under section 271D of the Income Tax Act(hereinaf ter referred to as "the Act") is independent of the assessment proceeding...." The findings are as follows: "The Tribunal as well as the High Court has held that it could not be so for the simp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the former part of this order in ITA No. 41/Chd./2011 in the case of Rajiv Kumar, Mohali Vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh shall apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the Cross Objection of the assessee M/s Karan Empire Pvt. Ltd., Mohali, in CO No. 13/Chd./2011 and the appeal appeal in ITA No. 1327/Chd./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08 in respect of Sh. Sohan Lai Arora, Mohali Vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh are allowed, therefore, the respective assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act in these cases are held to be invalid. Since, the legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed, therefore, no findings are given in respect of the other issues raised by the assessee and we do not see any merit in the appeals of the department....