TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A), NFAC)) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on fact and in law, in confirming the action of the AO (JCIT, Range-35) levying the penalty of Rs. 33,60,000/- invoking section 271D of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on fact and in law, in passing the order by wrongly holding that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269ST of the Income Tax Act and thus liable for penalty under section 271DA of the Act by grossly ignoring the fact that AO has levied the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved the cash against the sale of property. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on fact and in law, in confirming the penalty ignoring the contention of the assessee that the property alleged to have been sold by the assessee does not belong to the assessee and not registered in the name of the assessee. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on fact and in law, in confirming the penalty ignoring the contention of the assessee that alleged agreement to sell on the basis of which the penalty has been levied has no reference that the assessee has received any cash amount from the buyer. 10 On the facts and circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case are that Assessing Officer had made out a case that the assessee has allegedly received cash in violation to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and, accordingly, a penalty order u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was passed on 20.01.2020. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) who modified the case of the Assessing Officer by changing the whole of the section in which penalty order was passed by Assessing Officer from section 271D to section 271DA and, accordingly, held that assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269ST as against the case made by the Assessing Officer that assessee has allegedly violated the provisions of Section 269SS. 6. Now the further aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly invoked the section 269ST and 271DA and this is only a typographical error. 10. We have heard the rival submission and have perused the materials on record. We find that the provisions of section 269ST and penalty u/s 271DA was brought in the statutes by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2017. We find that the transaction in question took place on 23.05.2016, well before Section 269ST and 271DA was enacted. We are therefore of the considered view that the provisions of section 269ST and 271DA cannot be applied retrospectively, as the law did not exist at the time of the transaction. It is a well-established principle that penal tax provisions cannot be applied retrospectively unless the statute expressly provides for such application. ....