TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied u/s.271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act") by the Addl.CIT dated 30.08.2022. 2. The brief facts are that the AO passed the assessment order against the company u/s.153C of the Act dated 16.08.2021 and assessed income of Rs. 9,04,35,576/- in place of returned income of Rs. 4,44,350/-. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT issued notice dated 07.02.2022 proposing levy of penalty u/s.271D for violation of provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act alleging that assessee has received Rs. 4.20 Cr. in cash for sale of property to M/s.KMV Projects Ltd., vide sale agreements dated 03.12.2015 and other documents. However, the assessee objected to the levy of penalty by submitting its rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law and in support of such a contention cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills reported in [2015] 379 ITR 521 (SC) and also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari V. JCIT in WP No.44285 of 2022 and several other coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal which will be discussed infra. 4. In this regard, in similar case, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [supra], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining similar contention/legal issue of levy of penalty u/s.271E which is pari materia to sec.271D of the Act held as under: No penalty u/s 271E could be levied in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specified sum in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act, penalty under Section 271E of the Act would be imposable on a person who makes or repays the loan or deposit or specified advance in contravention of Section 269T. Therefore, in a way, the two provisions are complimentary to each other. 23. In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (supra}, Supreme Court considered the question as to whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act is independent of the assessment proceeding? In the facts of that case, it was found that the penalty order was issued following the assessment order. However in appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had set aside the original assessment order with a direction to frame assessment de n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order as to infraction of Section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, no penalty could be levied under Section 271D of the Act without recorded satisfaction. In this connection, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (I supra) wherein it was clarified that provisions of Section 271E are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. However, this aspect of the matter was not considered by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. Respondent No.I relying upon the Kerala High Court decision in Grihalaxmi Vision (2 supra) noted that competent authority to levy penalty is the Joint Commissioner. He has also referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. Mac ....