TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits in respect to order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs. 6,51,000/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and consequent order passed is bad in law and unjustified. 3. Levy of penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is prima facie invalid and bad in law as per facts and evidence on record. Denial of condonation of delay is thus unjustified and unwarranted. 4. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law in the absence of any satisfaction in the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs. 6,51,000/- includes Rs. 6,00,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of section 273B of the Act for not filing return of income as required under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by the provisos to that sub-section before the end of the relevant assessment year. Since the assessee failed to prove that the said transaction that there was any reasonable cause for receiving the cash payment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 6,51,000, under Section 271-D of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269-SS of the Act, vide order dated 26/03/2022. The assessee preferred an appeal against the Assessing Officer's order before the learned CIT(A), which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal was filed on the grounds that the impugned penalty order passed by the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Submission of above fact considered in the assessment of buyer in assessment framed on 13/12/2022. The learned Counsel submitted that penalty levied under section 271D is without recording satisfaction in the course of assessment proceedings and thus levy of penalty is bad in law. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel relied upon the following case laws:- i) CIT v/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, [2015] 379 ITR 521 (SC); and ii) Shri Bhowmick Raj Singh v/s JCIT, ITA no.128/Rpr./2016, A.Y. 2010-11, order darted 02/01/2011, reported as (Rai-Trib.) 2024 ITL 275. 6. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice savings bank or co-operative bank; (c) any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act; (d) any Government company as defined in clause (45)of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); (e) such other institution, association or body or class of institutions, associations or bodies which the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette: Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit or specified sum, where the person from whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted and the person by whom the loan or deposit or specified sum is taken or accepted, are both having agricultural inc....