IN THE ITAT RAIPUR

RAVISH SOOD, J.M. & ARUN KHODPIA, A.M.

Bhowmick Raj Singh v. Jt. CIT

ITA No. 128/RPR/2016

2 January, 2024

Assessee by: Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA

Revenue by: Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Ravish Sood, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Raipur, dated 26-2-2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 31-10-2013 for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer has erred grossly and not justified in:-

A) Imposing penalty of Rs.27,00,000 under section 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 for violating the provision of section 269SS by accepting cash deposit for more than Rs.20,000 from the parties.

B) The order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in facts.

C) Any other Ground that may be abducted at the time of hearing.

Also the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following additional grounds of appeal before us:

Additional Gr. No.1.

'1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, penalty levied under section 271D of Rs.27,00,000 by learned. Jt.Commissioner date 31-10-13 is invalid, as assessment order made under section 143(3) date. 25-3-13 by learned. Assessing Officer (i.e. Deputy Commissioner -1, Bhilai) wherein he has not recorded any satisfaction about violation/infraction of Section 269SS & thereby initiation of penalty under section 271D; there is no whisper about initiation of penalty under section271D in the assessment order; in absence of this. pre-requisite which sine qua non for levying penalty under section 271D; penalty levied under section 271D would be invalid and is liable to be quashed.'