9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, observing that only provision that comes to the help of the assessee in this case is as provided in section 273B of the Act, according to which, no penalty shall be imposable on the person for any failure referred to, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure and the assessee proves that due to that reasonable cause, he was prevented to take a loan otherwise than by an account payee cheque or draft. Thus, according to the learned CIT(A), the only provision that comes to the help of the assessee is provided in section 273B of the Act and since the assessee in this case failed to provide any reasonable cause for accepting cash amount of sale consideration of Rs. 41,53,000/-, the contentions made by the assessee were held to be devoid of merit as the purpose of the loan is not a relevant fact for deciding the contravention of provisions under section 269SS of the Act. Learned CIT(A) accordingly held that there is no need to interfere with the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 271D of the Act and consequently dismissed the appeal. 4. Assessee filed the present appeal and contended that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is concerned, we find that in the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 passed under Section 153A of the Act, return of income filed by the petitioner was accepted by the assessing officer and accordingly, the total income was assessed. In the return of income, petitioner had admitted receiving total income of Rs. 80,84,180.00 which was also accepted by the assessing officer. 16. Subsequently, respondent No.1 took the view that petitioner had sold immovable properties for a total sale consideration of Rs. 92,13,000.00 out of which he had accepted cash to the tune of Rs. 87,80,000.00 which was in violation of Section 269SS of the Act, attracting penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 17. Before we advert to the reply submitted by the petitioner, we may mention that under Section 269SS of the Act, no person shall take or accept from any other person (referred to as a depositor) any loan or deposit or any specified sum otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, if the amount of such loan or deposit or specified sum is twenty thousand rupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act reads as under: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269T. 271E. [(1)] If a person repays any [loan or] deposit [or specified advance] referred to in section 269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the [loan or] deposit [or specified advance] so repaid.] [(2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the [Joint] Commissioner.] 21. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 271E of the Act provides that if a person repays any loan or deposit or specified advance referred to in Section 269T of the Act otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. Sub-section (2) clarifies that any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 22. From an analysis of Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, it is seen that both the provisions are pari materia to each other. While Section 271D of the Act would be attracted on a person accepting loan or deposit or specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (1 supra) wherein it was clarified that provisions of Section 271E are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. However, this aspect of the matter was not considered by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. Respondent No.1 relying upon the Kerala High Court decision in Grihalaxmi Vision (2 supra) noted that competent authority to levy penalty is the Joint Commissioner. He has also referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. Mac Data Ltd.3 wherein it was observed that assessing officer has to satisfy himself as to whether penalty proceedings should be initiated or not. Assessing officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No.1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No.1 had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (1 supra). In the said decision as extracted above, Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the High Court holding that satisfaction must be recorded in the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
