would submit that by a CBDT Circular No.09/DV/2016 dated 26 th
April, 2016, a clarification has been provided not only with regard
to the departmental view as regards initiation of penalty proceeding
but to bring an uniformity and to remove conflict in the procedure
to be followed by the Assessing Officers below the rank of Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, while making a reference to the
Range Head regarding any violation of provisions of Section 269SS,
269ST and 269T of the said Act, as the case may be, in course of
the assessment proceeding or any other proceeding under the said
Act.
9
8. According to him, in absence of the satisfaction being recorded by
the Assessing Officer regarding contravention of Section 269SS,
269ST and 269T of the said Act for initiation of penalty
proceedings under the provisions of sections 271D, 271DA and
271E of the said Act, independent penalty proceeding, independent
of such satisfaction could be initiated. In support of his aforesaid
contention that in absence of satisfaction regarding contravention
of the provisions of Section 269SS, 269ST and 269ST of the said
Act, by the Assessing Officer, no penalty proceeding can be
initiated under sections 271D, 271DA and 271E of the said Act
and no penalty could be levied, he has placed reliance on the
judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vs. Jai Laxmi Rice
Mills Ambala City reported in (2015) 64 taxman.com 75 (SC).
He has also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the
Hon’ble High Court at Andhra Pradesh in the case of Grandhi Sri
Venkata Amarendra vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
reported in (2024) 167 taxman.com 352 (Andhra Pradesh).
[ad_1]
Source link