TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order, Ld. Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act, moreover while framing the assessment order Ld. AD has not given any finding/observation that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act thereby whole proceedings are void ab initio and order passed is illegal and not tenable in law. Hence Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of imposition of penalty of Rs, 90000/- under section 271D which is void, illegal, bad and untenable ab initio. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has not followed the mandatory procedure as prescribed in notification No. 76/2020 issued by CBDT dated 25-09-2020 which stipulates that Appeal Unit shall prepare an order after t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S of the Act. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) observed that the finding of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is that the assessee had sold industrial plot in Jalor, Rajasthan and received cash of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. The JCIT invoking the provisions of section 271D of the Act imposed penalty of Rs.90,000/- for receiving cash of Rs.90,000/- stating that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 4. On appeal the ld. CIT (Appeals) sustained the penalty observing that the assessee failed to provide any reasonabnle cause for accepting cash of Rs.90,000/- towards sale consideration. 5.1 Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no intention to contravene the law. The transaction was genuine, bonafide and there was reasonable cause to accept the money in cash as the buyer of the property wanted assurance for the deal. 5.3 Ld. Counsel submits that an ex-parte Assessment has been done and assesee is in appeal against the assessment order. Further, JCIT has issued penalty notices on 04-06-2019 and 12-12-2019 but were never received by the assessee. Final show cause notice was issued by the JCIT as on 20-12- 2019 asking the assessee to appear on 26-12-2019 which notice has been received by the assessee on the date of hearing itself i.e., in the morning of 26-12-2019 and assessee was not able to attend the proceedings due to short notice. Assessee has approached her co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C)]. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) T. Shiju, Chennai Vs. JCIT Non Corporate Range 7 dated 7 June, 2019 in ITA. No. 2829/Chny/2018; (ii) ACIT Vs. M/s. Narsi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. I.T. Appeal No. 2866/Del/2013 (Delhi - Trib.); (iii) Prithvi Singh Poonia Vs. JCIT I.T. Appeal No. 3108/Ahd. - Trib.); (iv) Shri Vikram Sood, manali Vs. Addl. CIT I.T. Appeal No. 1487/Chd./2017. 8. The ld. Counsel further referring to the Agreement of Sale, which is placed at Page 50 of the Paper book submits that the assessee has accepted token advance of Rs.40,000/- only and whereas the penalty was levied at Rs.90,000/-, on the assumption that the assessee has accepted Rs.90,000/....