TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;5,22,000/- for violating the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 2. Before us, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on the grounds that the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and also there was a reasonable cause for accepting the cash in violation to provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has received information from DIT(I&CI), Bhubaneswar that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 5,22,000/- in cash as sale consideration against the immovable property sold by her during the year. Thus, the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, the AO referred the matter to the JCIT for levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that the term "specified sum" as introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015 does not hits assessee's transaction more particularly when the assessee has not received any advance payment rather has received the entire sale consideration in one row at the time of getting the document registered before the sub-registrar. Ld. AR also submits that in the present case, there was no assessment proceedings either pending or carried out against the assessee in which the satisfaction could be recorded for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, and, therefore, when no proceedings were pending before the AO, the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for referring the matter to the JCIT u/s. 271D of the Act, is illegal and barred by limitation, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during which the penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings". Accordingly, we are of the view that since the proceedings u/s. 269SS of the Act are independent proceedings and for violating the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, the penalty is leviable u/s. 271D of the Act, therefore, the contention of the ld. AR that the penalty proceedings has been initiated without jurisdiction does not hold water and, thus, this contention is dismissed. 8. With regard to reasonable cause, from the records, we find that the assessee since inception of the proceedings before the AO has submitted that the payment was received in cash du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee cheque or account payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account, if the amount of such loan or deposit is twenty thousand rupees or more. However, certain exceptions have been provided in the section. Similarly, the existing provisions contained in section 269T of the Income-tax Act provide that any loan or deposit shall not be repaid, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account, by the persons specified in the section if the amount of loan or deposit is twenty thousand rupees or more. In order to curb generation of black money by way of dealings in cash in immovable property transactions it is proposed to amend section 269SS, of the Income-tax Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits. The existing provision contained in section 269SS provides that no person shall take from any person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account if the amount of such loan or deposit is twenty thousand rupees or more. It is proposed to substitute the said section so as to provide that no person shall take from any person, any loan or deposit or specified sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account if the amount of such loan or deposit or specified sum is twenty thousand rupees or more. It is also pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D of the Act for taking cash at the time of sale of immovable property. As discussed above, provisions of Section 269ST and Section 271DA has been introduced which are meant for the violation of making cash transaction above Rs. 2.00 lacs, which was not invoked by the AO though the transaction referred is fallen under the provision of Section 269ST of the Act. From the perusal of the intention of the legislature as explained in the memorandum and notes on clauses, while amendment made vide Finance Bill 2015, it is clear that intention for bringing this provision was to curb the generation of black money in real estate transaction for prohibiting the acceptance of the payment of advance in cash of Rs. 20000/- or more. The "specifie....