2024 (12) TMI 1605 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - ex-parte penalty order passed by CIT(A) NFAC - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the order passed under section 271D of the Act it is clear that there was no anterior assessment order. The legal riddle to solve whether the penalty under section 271D of the Act is leviable sans assessment. Similar issue came up before the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal Indore Bench in Shri Umakant Sharma 2023 (8) TMI 1094 - ITAT INDORE wherein the Tribunal quashed the impugned order levying penalty under section 271D as held it is pre-requisite condition that the initiation of penalty 271D/271E of the Act there must be assessment proceedings or proceeding arising from assessment order are pending in the case of the assessee. Accordingly following the judgment of Vijayaben G. Zalavadia 2022 (5) TMI 1572 - ITAT AHMEDABAD we hold that the penalty levied u/s 271D without any assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be levied without prior completion of assessment proceedings.Whether an ex-parte penalty order under section 271D without opportunity of hearing is valid.Whether acceptance of cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by account payee cheque or bank draft contravenes section 269SS and attracts penalty under section 271D.Whether the explanation of the assessee regarding the purchaser being an agriculturist and the transaction being a first-time cash payment constitutes a reasonable cause to avoid penalty under section 271D.Whether penalty imposed under section 271D without recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is valid.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The penalty under section 271D cannot be validly levied in the absence of any assessment proceedings or recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer; initiation of penalty proceedings sans assessment is "not valid and liable to be quashed."An ex-parte penalty order under section 271D without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard is "illegal, invalid and bad in law."Acceptance of cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by account payee cheque or bank draft contravenes section 269SS and attracts penalty under section 271D, subject to procedural validity.The explanation that the purchaser was an agriculturist and insisted on cash payment, or that the transaction was a first-time exchange, does not absolve the assessee from penalty under section 271D if the statutory conditions are otherwise met; however, such contentions must be considered in the assessment process.Penalty under section 271D/271E requires prior recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings; absence thereof renders the penalty order invalid, as affirmed by the Supreme Court and coordinate Tribunal benches.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of sections 269SS and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibit acceptance of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by specified banking instruments and prescribe penalty for contravention.Section 275 of the Act was interpreted to require the existence of assessment or related proceedings before penalty under chapter XXI can be validly imposed, establishing a bar on penalty orders passed without prior assessment.Precedents including the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Jain Laxmi Rice Mills and coordinate Tribunal decisions emphasize that penalty proceedings under sections 271D/271E must be predicated on recorded satisfaction during assessment; otherwise, such penalties are invalid.The Court rejected the contention that penalty can be imposed without assessment or recorded satisfaction, underscoring the necessity of procedural fairness and adherence to limitation periods under section 275.The judgment reaffirmed the principle that penalty proceedings must be initiated only after due assessment or revision proceedings, and that imposition of penalty without such prerequisite is "not sustainable in the eye of law."