AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order of penalty passed u/s 271D of the Act is without jurisdiction in as much as the impugned order has been passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center, which has been upheld by the learned CIT[A] observing that the impugned order was passed by the A.O., with the approval of the JCIT instead of being passed by the JCIT to whom powers are vested for imposition of penalty and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act is bad in law in as much as the appellant has demonstrated reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Act for accepting cash of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LM EXCHANGE [CINEMA] reported in 304 ITR 172 [Raj] and also the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad Bench, in the case of ITO V. UNIVERSAL ASSOCIATES reported in TIOL-498/ITAT-AHM and consequently, the penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act, for the alleged violation u/s.269SS of the Act, requires to be cancelled having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VEGETABLE PRODUCTS reported in 88 ITR 192 6. Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied by the learned Na FAC, Delhi without the same being initiated by the learned A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings specifically in the order is bad in law, as the learned Addl/JCIT gave the first notice only on 24/11/2020 i.e. afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed sale consideration of Rs.15.70 lakhs in cash. The acceptance of cash was in violation of section 269SS read with section 271D of the Act. Since the assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, ITO Ward-1(1), Mangaluru referred the matter for initiation of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide letter dated 23.11.2020. Accordingly, notice u/s 271D of the Act was issued by Additional/JCIT, Range-1 Mangaluru on 24.11.2020 to the assessee. The assessee filed a reply to the said show cause notice issued u/s 271D of the Act dated 24.11.2020 vide its letter dated 14.12.2020, which reads as follows: "........................During the registration they gave me DD amounting to Rs.3,50,0007/- and loose case of Rs. 75,70,000/- and I co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee was a retired person. Earlier he worked as a clerk in a private concern. The assessee bought the property on 9.7.2004 by investing his past savings at the time of retirement in Bengaluru and the assessee has been staying in Mangaluru. The assessee got an information by neighbours around the assessee's property that a construction activity has been started in the plot owned by him and on his visit to the plot, he was surprised to see that an unauthorized construction work was being carried out at the assessee's plot. The assessee owing to health problem decided not to pursue the matter lega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no loss to the Government exchequer. Due to compulsion, assessee received an amount of Rs.15.70 lakhs in cash. As decided by the Tribunal in the case of Akash Education & Development Trust Vs. ADIT in ITA No.737/Bang/2021 dated 18.4.2022 wherein it was held that "it is not a deliberate and intentional violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Penalty like 271D of the Act will not be imposed unless the party concerned has acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation and penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Imposition of penalty for failure to perform statutory obligation is only a discretionary p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record. Ordinarily, a plea has to be ignorance of law cannot support the breach of a statutory provision. But the fact of such technical breach due to ignorance of the relevant provision of law on account of bonafide belief coupled with the fact that the transaction in question is genuine and bonafide transaction are undertaken during the regular course of its business will not result in levy of penalty u/ 271D of the Act. Now there is no allegation by the department that assessee has evaded any tax emerged from this transaction by not disclosing the same to the department. On the other hand, it is evident that assessee duly declared the sale transaction of the plot in its return of income and discharged the tax liability. 4.2 In our opin....