TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the petitioner contends that penalty under Section 271D of the Act, is levied without recording any satisfaction in contemplating levy of penalty. 3. It is stated that a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, the case of M/s. Usha Bala Group and M/s. V.V. Balaksirshna Rao. During the search proceedings in the case of M/s. V.V. Balakrishna Rao, certain incriminating documents relating to the petitioner were found. Applying the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, the petitioner was asked to submit his return of income. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has furnished his return of income on 15-04-2022, admitting total income of Rs. 23,14,400/-. Notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....na Rao, there are no discrepancies, however, the seized material contains document(s), which includes a letter dated 02-06-2014, stated to have been issued by the petitioner to Balakrishna Rao, acknowledging the availment loan of Rs.6 crores, and pledging of immovable properties as collateral security. By pointing out from the material before it, the AO concluded that (pg.14 of assessment order) the petitioner had financial transaction with Balakrishna Rao, outside the books and outside banking channels for the subject assessment year. The relevant material relied upon by the AO was copied/scanned and pasted in the assessment order (Pgs. 15 to 54) making the same as part of the assessment order. From the said transactions, 60 transactions w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, which according to the Assessing Officer is excess payment over and above the loans accepted. After passing of the assessment order the Assessing Officer, has referred the file to the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, intimating the violations said to have been committed by the petitioner and for appropriate action. The learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, has initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, and levied penalty of Rs. 6,65,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Heard, submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. Perused the material on record. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that no satisfaction was reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 (Madras) iv. In the case of Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2, Chennai, (2021) 278 Taxman 273 (SC) v. In the case of AI Ameen Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2021) 283 Taxman 285 (SC) vi. In the case of Assistant Director of Inspection Investigation Vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC) vii. In the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 viii. In the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT, (2007) 6 SCC 329 8. We have gone through the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer, except to base his addition on the letter of the assessee dated 02-06-2014, did not record any finding that there has been any violation of the provisions of Sec. 2....