2024 (7) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r under consideration and received an amount of Rs. 8,39,000/- in cash. The assessee filed its return of income on 7/8/2017. The return of income file by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) on 8/9/2017. Thereafter, on 6/7/2021, the assessee received a notice u/s 271D of the Act. From the JCIT, Range-2(2), Bangalore proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee offered his explanation before the NFAC and contended that there was a reasonable cause for accepting the amount in cash. However, the assessing authority could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 8,39,000/- i.e. equivalent to the cash received by the assessee.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accept payments in cash. 7. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 8. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that in this case, the assessee haas filed return of income on 07/08/2017 and this return was processed by the Department on 8/9/2017, impugned penalty notice dated 6/7/2021 was issued by department. Ld DR also failed to point out anything contrary to the facts of the case. Therefore, we are of the view that the penalty was not initiated by the revenue in reasonable time. A reference can be made to the judgment of Bangalore Bench in the case of Sree Rajendra Suri Gurumandir Trust in ITA No.751/Bang/2023 vide order dated 05.12.2013, wherein it is held as under:- "3.2.1 Referring to the decision of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 21.12.2020, which is approximately after lapse of 45 months. Therefore, the penalty order passed by ld. AO u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is not within reasonable time." 9. The assessee has further relied upon the order of Indore Bench in the case of 2) Shri Umakant Sharma in ITA Nos.364 to 366/Ind/2022 vide order dated 19.07.2023 for the proposition that there must be pendency of some proceedings before initiation of the penalty proceedings. We think it appropriate to reproduce the relevant findings of the coordinate bench:- "11. Therefore, it is pre-requisite condition that the initiation of penalty 271D/271E of the Act, there must be assessment proceedings or proceeding arising from assessment order are pending in the case of the asses....