ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present penalty appeals arises out of orders dated 02.04.2024 by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18 u/s. 271D & 271E on following grounds of appeal:

ITA No. 1112/Bang/2024 “1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act without hearing the appellant and Such order is in total violation of principles of natural justice is bad in law and void ab-initio and is liable to be quashed.

1.2 Without prejudice, the impugned order levying penalty having not been passed by the Income Tax authority authorized under section 271D is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

2.1 In any case, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the initiation of penalty proceedings and consequential order passed levying penalty u/s 271E of the Act are barred by limitation and erred in confirming the validity of the order instead of quashing the impugned order as barred by limitation.

2.2 Without prejudice, the penalty proceedings u/s 271D having been initiated after a long delay of almost 2 years make the entire proceedings barred by limitation and the impugned order levying penalty is liable to be quashed.

2.3 In any case there being no proper satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for violation of provisions of section 2b9SS which would lead to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act and there being no reference for initation of penalty to the prescribed authority make the penalty proceedings and the impugned order bad in law and such an order is liable to be quashed.

3. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,75,000/- of the Act u/s 271D of the Act on the ground that the appellant has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting loan beyond the prescribed limit. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable, the penalty as levied and confirmed being erroneous is to be deleted. .

4. The authorities below have erred in not appreciating that (a) the genuineness of the transactions were not doubted (b) there was a reasonable cause for accepting money in cash (c) there was no conscious disregard / contravention of the statutory obligation or defiance of law;

and have erred in levying/confirming the penalty u/s 27ID of the Act.

On facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, the penalty as levied /confirmed is to be deleted.

5. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or atleast or in the alternative, the penalty as levied/confirmed be deleted.”

ITA No. 1113/Bang/2024 “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed levying penalty u/s 271E of the Act without hearing the appellant and Such order is in total violation of principles of natural justice is bad in law and void ab-initio and is liable to be quashed.

1.2 Without prejudice, the impugned order levying penalty having not been passed by the Income Tax authority authorized under section 271E is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

2.1 In any case, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the initiation of penalty proceedings and consequential order passed levying penalty u/s 271E of the Act are barred by limitation and erred in confirming the validity of the order instead of quashing the impugned order as barred by limitation.

2.2 Without prejudice, the penalty proceedings u/s 271E having been initiated after a long delay of almost 2 years make the entire proceedings barred by limitation and the impugned order levying penalty is liable to be quashed.

2.3 In any case there being no proper satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for violation of provisions of section 269T which would lead to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act and there being no reference for initation of penalty