Prior approval by Additional Commissioner satisfies Section 274(2) 'Joint Commissioner' requirement for penalties under Sections 271D/271E, as Section 2(28C) defines Joint Commissioner to include Additional Commissioner unless context excludes.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

[WP(C) Nos.13946/2026, 13948/2026, 13956/2026, 13979/2026, 14020/2026, 14041/2026, 14046/2026, 14083/2026, 14096/2026, 14098/2026, 14099/2026, 14102/2026, 14108/2026, 14127/2026, 14140/2026, 14151/2026]

In all these cases, the challenge raised by the petitioner is against the penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of various assessment years under Section 271D as well as 271E of the . In all these cases, assessment for the relevant years was completed under Section 153A of the , based on a search proceeding under Section 132 of the Act.

2. As against the respective assessment orders passed by the competent authority, appeals submitted by the petitioner are pending consideration. The penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act are initiated by the authorities, pending consideration of the said appeals. The challenge raised against the said proceedings is mainly on the ground that the said proceedings, which were initiated by the 1st respondent in all these cases, were without proper authority, as the penalty was imposed without prior approval as contemplated under Section 274(2) of the .

3. Sri Anil D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, brought to the attention of this Court, the impugned orders wherein, it is mentioned that, the orders are passed with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Kochi, and pointed out that the prior approval from the said authority is not sufficient for imposing a penalty under Sections 271D and 271E, in the light of the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 274(2) of the Act, as according to him, the requirement is to have the prior approval of the “Joint Commissioner”, and not the “Additional Commissioner”.

4. Sri Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, opposes the said contention, by bringing to the attention of this Court, the definition of "Joint Commissioner" as contemplated under section 2(28C) of the , where, it is contemplated that, the expression "Joint Commissioner" includes the "Additional Commissioner" as well. Therefore, it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that, wherever the term “Joint Commissioner” is referred to, it would take within it, the “Additional Commissioner” as well, unless it is specifically excluded for the purpose of the said provision. Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while asserting his contentions, brought the attention of this Court to various statutory provisions contained in the Act, which are relevant to the issue involved in this writ petition. The said provisions, which include Section 271D and 271E, read as follows:

Section 271D -Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS - (1) If a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit or specified sum in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS, he shall be liable to pay , by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified sum so taken or accepted.

(2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner:

Provided that any penalty under sub-section (1) , on or after the 1st day of April , 2025, shall be imposed by the Assessing Officer.

Section 271E - Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269 T - (1) If a person repays any loan or deposit or speci 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 t