TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in retaining penalty u/s 271D of Rs. 2,17,11,192 out of Rs. 2,79,47,692. 2. The appellant submits that item wise explanation of 114 deposits spanning over 19 pages was prepared and culled from the seized books and records and not from the computerized books as has been mentioned by the learned CIT(A). 3. The appellant further submits this entire statement prepared and furnished was neither examined by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda in remand proceedings though it was with him for seven months and the Assessing Officer at Surat though it was with him for two years and therefore, the details prepared by the appellant remained uncontroverted. 4. The appellant further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submits that first and second additional grounds of appeal is purely legal in nature. No additional fact is to be brought on record for adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal. All facts for consideration of additional grounds of appeal are emanating from the orders of lower authorities. Both the additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) 229 ITR 383 (SC), West Bengal State Electricity Board ( 198 -CTR-122 (Cal), Bharat Rice Mill- 148 Taxman 145 (All), Dalmia Dairy Industries Limited 319 ITR 2 (SC) . 5. On the other hand, the lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apparent from the orders of lower authorities. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC (supra) wherein no new facts for adjudication of additional ground of appeal is required to be brought on record and/or the additional ground of appeal is purely legal in nature, may be admitted for adjudication. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, the second additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is admitted for adjudication. Now adverting to the facts of the case. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the present case was completed on 31/12/2003 under Section 158BC r.w.s. 158BG/144 of the Act in making total addition of Rs. 1.09 crore. The Assessing Officer at the time of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR of the assessee carried us through the contents of assessment order and would submit that there is no whisper about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D or any whisper for making any reference for initiation of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC) held that wherein no satisfaction was recorded for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271E, the impugned penalty order passed under said Section deserve to be set aside. The ld. AR submits that Section 271E and 271D are having similar criteria, one penalty relates to making payment and the other relates to taking or accepting loan in cash i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of both the parties and have gone through the assessment order dated 31/12/2003. On careful perusal of the assessment order, we find that there is no whisper or reference in the assessment order about initiation of penalty under Section 271D. We further find that there is no whisper about making a reference to the Joint Commissioner or Additional commissioner for levying such penalty. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), while considering the similar questions of law held that when no satisfaction recording regarding penalty proceedings under Section 271E, in the assessment order was recorded while passing the assessment order, no penalty could be levied. We further find that by following the order of ....