2026 (4) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 28.09.2012, declaring income of Rs. 86,68,284/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2013 determining total income of Rs. 96,84,540/-. On 17.06.2015, a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in case of Ess Gee Group of companies and its Directors and Promoters. In course of search and seizure operation, as alleged, some incriminating materials in the form of loose papers were found and marked as Annexure A-5. Page No. 25 of the said annexure reflected alleged cash loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- availed by the assessee on 04.06.2010 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsuccessful, before the Tribunal. 4. During the pendency of quantum proceeding, the Assessing Officer on 25.04.2019 sent a communication to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax intimating contravention of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act on account of availing of cash loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- thereby inviting penal consequences u/s. 271D of the Act. After receiving the information from the Assessing Officer, the Additional CIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee seeking explanation as to why penalty u/s. 271D of the Act should not be imposed. Though the assessee objected to imposition of penalty however on 28.01.2020 the Addl. CIT passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act. The penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, learned counsel relied upon the following decision: i. CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [2015] (11 TMI-1453 -SC) 7. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted, initiation of proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act does not depend upon recording of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceeding as the authority competent to initiate and impose penalty u/s. 271D of the Act is not the Assessing Officer but a superior authority. Hence, nonrecording of satisfaction by the AO in course of assessment proceeding is irrelevant. He submitted, the limitation for passing the penalty order has to be reckoned from the date of show cause notice issued by the Addl. CIT. In that eventuality, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... third-party Ess Gee Group of companies, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee. The said loose paper allegedly reflected availing of cash loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- at the interest rate of 15% by the assessee. In a statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act from Shri Suresh Gandhi stated to be the Director in Ess Gee Group Companies, he admitted of having advanced the cash loan to the assessee. However, when these facts were brought to the notice of assessee in course of assessment proceeding, from the very beginning, he flatly denied of having availed any cash loan from Shri Suresh Gandhi, leave aside, the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- Though, the Assessing Officer has disbelieved the assessee however fact remain....