Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Subramaniam Thanu (ITAT Chennai)
Section 271D penalty proceeding cannot be initiated if AO fail to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty penalty proceeding in respect of violation of provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessing Officer has to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty under section 271D of the Act in respect of violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In this case, the assessment order was passed on 30.12.2017 and reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Addl. CIT on 14.03.2021 to initiate penalty proceedings. There is a time gap of more than three years In the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer has noted that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be initiated separately. However, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Addl. CIT to initiate the proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Range Head regarding violation of provisions of Sec.269SS and 269T during the course of assessment proceedings itself. Thus, the action of Ld. AO was in gross violation of departmental circular. By considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra), the judgement of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari v. JCIT (supra), the decisions of Chennai Benches of ITAT in the case of T. Shiju v. JCIT (supra), in the case of Smt. S.B. Patil v. JCIT (supra), the decision of the Delhi Benches of ITAT in the case of Anglican India Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (supra), the ground raised by the Department is liable to be dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
The appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the different but identical orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, all dated 03.05.2023 relevant the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 deleting penalty levied by appropriate officer under section 271D as well as section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Since facts and grounds are identical, we take up the appeal of assessment year 2015-16 for adjudication.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
