Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (1) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty proceedings u/s 271E, the impugned penalty order passed under said Section deserve to be set aside. Considering the fact that there is no satisfaction about initiation of penalty under Section 271D, therefore, respectfully following Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), the penalty levied by Addl. CIT vide his order dated 29/09/2019 is quashed/set aside. In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. Considering the fact that we have quashed the penalty order u/s 271D on legal ground on the basis of decision of Hon ble Apex Court, therefore, consideration and adjudication of the various plea of assessee has become academic. In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 301/Srt/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t relied. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 24/07/2015 declaring income of Rs. 2,51,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29/11/2017. The Assessing Officer during the assessment noted that the assessee has purchased agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 1.29 crore with other nine persons (co-owners). The assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 14,33,333/- as his share on account of consideration of land. In addition to sale consideration, the assessee has also certain charges in cash, which includes registration charges of Rs. 87,669/-, stamp duty of Rs. 70,226/- and other charges of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in contravention of condition of Section 269SS of the Act. On further appeal before the NFAC/CIT(A), the action of Add. CIT in levying penalty under section 271D was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard the submission of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is an agriculturist and was having no taxable income in the past. He has not filed return of income in earlier years. During the year under appeal, the assessee and other family members sold agricult .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as not doubted by the assessing officer or ld CIT(A). The assessee is agriculturist and availed gift form his brother who is also agriculturist and the rigorous of section 269SS is not applicable on the persons if the recipient and depositor both are agriculturist. To support his submissions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in ITO Vs Rajendra Trading Company (1994) 48 ITD 210(Chd). 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld SR DR for the revenue submits that the assessee was granted full opportunity before levying penalty by Add. CIT. The ld Sr DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal. 7. After hearing the submissions of both .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sment order recorded that the assessee has made cash payment either to the seller of land or on account of various expenses which includes purchase of stamp duty or registration charges. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has incurred Rs. 5,59,944/- in cash. 10. I find that the Assessing Officer though, at the time of passing the assessment order, initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, there is no whisper in the assessment order regrading initiation or satisfaction about the initiation of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The ld. Add. CIT levied penalty vide order dated 29/09/2019 of Rs. 5,59,944/-. I find that the Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 64 taxmann.com 75 (SC) held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates