TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out of the order passed u/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], dated 16/3/2022 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 34 days filing the appeal. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the petition, along with an affidavit, filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee explained the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: "1 ...... 2. The appellant suffered from high fever from 24/10/2022 onwards which was diagnosed as AFI with Thrombocytopenia with Jaundice and he was under treatment for one week. As a part of the treatment, the Doctor advised th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee and the same was served on the assessee through email on 11/08/2018 and also manually served on the assessee on 17/8/2018. Further, Notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 26/10/2018 and 31/1/2019 were issued and served on the assessee wherein the assessee was called for certain information. In response, the assessee filed his reply and furnished the information called for viz., computation of total income, copies of bank statements, explanation notes, information / evidences with regard to the sources for cash deposits made into the bank accounts, evidence in respect of LTCG on sale of inherited immovable property etc. On verification of the e-submission / information furnished by the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lating the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Subsequently, the case was handled under the Faceless Penalty Scheme and a show cause notice dated 10/06/2021 was issued to the assessee wherein the assessee was asked to explain as to why an order imposing penalty u/s. 271D of the Act should not be passed since the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In response the assessee gave a detailed reply explaining the reasons for accepting the payment of Rs. 16,98,000/- towards sale of immovable property. The Ld. AO did not consider the explanation given by the assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 16,98,000/- invoking the provisions of section 271D of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven by the assessee with regard to the sale of property and the related transactions and accorded to the return of income filed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that Ld.AO has not recorded his satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings while passing the assessment order and therefore, the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 271D of the Act is unsustainable in law. The Ld. AR relied on various case laws, but placed heavy reliance on the ratio laid down in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [379 ITR 0521] (SC). The Ld.AR further submitted that the cash receipts have been accounted and is evidenced by sale deeds with respective buyers. Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the penalty levied by the Ld. AO and confirm....