Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1213 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions u/s 269SS - mandation of recording satisfaction - treatment of the advance as 'specified sum' after taxing the same as unexplained income - AO treated the said cash received as advance from the sale of land as unexplained income and taxed the same under the provisions of Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - HELD THAT:- The penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of alleged undisclosed income and simultaneously treating the said amount in violation of 269SS of the Act. As decided in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brand reported [2006 (7) TMI 126 - DELHI HIGH COURT] issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of alleged undisclosed income and simultaneously treating the said amount in violation of 269SS of the Act. In our view, the requirement of 269SS is that the specified sum had been accepted by the assessee in cash which is prohibited by the Act. Undisclosed income is contrary to the disclosed income i.e. specified sum disclosed in the return. Also we are of the opinion that recording of the satisfaction by the AO is sine qua non for initiating the penalty u/s 271D - AO though had mentioned that the AO has proposed the imposition of penalty u/s 271D for violation of the provisions of section 269SS, however, after looking into the assessment order reproduced herein below, it is abundantly clear that neither such proposal for imposition of penalty u/s 271D was proposed by the Assessing Officer nor any satisfaction for initiation of penalty was recorded in the assessment order. We are of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the AO had been rightly deleted by the learned CIT (A). In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
|