2023 (10) TMI 1472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e in brief are as follows:- i) The petitioner filed his return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring the total income at (Rs. 60,909/-). The petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny, ultimately, resulting in initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271 D of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.02.2022 against the petitioner. Challenging the said penalty proceedings, the petitioner filed Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos. 5911 and 5914 of 2022 and this Court vide order, dated 16.03.2022 set aside the penalty proceedings and remanded the matters for reconsideration. ii) The respondent, in consequence of the said direction issued by this Court, issued a fresh notice to the petitioner in regard to the penalty proceedings init....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner is yet to discharge their liability and to substantiate the same, the learned counsel referred to the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2018, pertaining to the financial year 2017-18, wherein, in respect of the Column 'Non-Concurrent Liabilities, the other Long Terms Liabilities is mentioned as Rs. 41,66,39,600/-, however, the respondent under an impression that there was a cash transaction made by the petitioner to the extent of said amount, imposed penalty at 100% against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that aggrieved against the penalty proceedings, the petitioner preferred appeal before NFAC, along with a Petition for Stay, however, the respondent granted a conditional stay, by directing the petitioner to pay 20 %....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e huge amount was involved, directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the outstanding amount, and the same does not call for interference. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the instant case, it is seen that demand was raised by the respondent-Department to the extent of Rs. 41,74,41,800/-. The said demand was raised under an impression that there was cash transaction made by the petitioner to that extent of the said amount, which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 269 SS of the Act, and hence, 100% penalty has been imposed against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there ....