TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that penalty under Section 271D of the Act, is levied without recording any satisfaction in contemplating levy of penalty. 3. It is stated that a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, the case of M/s. Usha Bala Group and V.V. Balaksirshna Rao. During the search proceedings in the case of V.V. Balakrishna Rao, certain incriminating documents relating to the petitioner were found. Applying the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, the petitioner was asked to submit his return of income. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has furnished his return of income on 18-04-2022 admitting total income of Rs. 22,20,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as observed that on cross verification of the details furnished by the petitioner and Balakrishna Rao, there are no discrepancies, however, the seized material contains document(s), which includes a letter dated 02-06-2014, stated to have been issued by the petitioner to Balakrishna Rao, acknowledging the availment cash loan of Rs. 6 crores, and pledging of immovable properties as collateral security. By pointing out from the material before it, the AO concluded that (pg.14 of assessment order) the petitioner had financial transaction with Balakrishna Rao, outside the books and outside banking channels for the subject assessment year. The relevant material relied upon by the AO was copied/scanned and pasted in the assessment order (Pgs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- . Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Heard, submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. Perused the material on record. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order with regard to levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, Ambala City [(2015) 64 Taxmann.com 75 (SC)], contends that there was no evidence before the Assessing Officer to show that the petitioner has accepted the loans in cash. As noted from the assessment proceedings, the assessee was put on notice as regards the loans received in cash. The p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2010) 12 SCC 350 VIII. In the case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. CIT, (2007) 6 SCC 329 8. We have gone through the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer, except to base his addition on the letter of the assessee dated 02-06-2014, did not record any finding that there has been any violation of the provisions of Sec. 269SS of the Act by the assessee, nor was any satisfaction recorded to the effect that the alleged transaction of acceptance of loan in cash would attract penal consequences. In the absence of any finding to the said effect, in our considered view, the penalty cannot be levied. A presumption can be drawn, in the absence of a finding by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the petitioner has violated the provi....