RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.02.2024 of the learned PCIT (Central), Pune passed u/sec.263 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), for assessment year 2017-2018.

2. There is delay of 133 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the 2 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 Learned DR, the delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

A search action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases on 26.09.2017. During the search in the above mentioned group, residential premises of Shri Umakant S Kuwar [Accountant of Yuvraj Dhamale Group] at Flat No.201, Alka Uttam Enclave, Mundhawa, Pune as well as office premise of Dhamale Group at 158, Wellesley Road, Besides Lal Deval, Camp, Pune were covered from where certain documents pertaining to Shri Rajendra Ramesh Gugale were found and seized. Therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched-party having possession of the seized material recorded the satisfaction that the information contained on Page No.57 of Bundle No.4 seized from residential premises of Shri Umakant Kuwar and Page No.5 of Bundle No.4 seized from the office premises of Dhamale Group at Camp, Pune relates to Shri Rajendra Ramesh Gugale. The case was centralized u/sec.127 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, by recording a satisfaction dated 01.03.2021 as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act in the case of the present

3 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 assessee, notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 on 27.05.2021.

3.1. In response to the notice u/sec.153C, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 13.12.2021 disclosing total income of Rs.8,08,880/-.

Thereafter, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which, the assessee filed requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act on 26.12.2021 accepting the returned income.

3.2. Subsequently, the learned PCIT on perusal of the assessment record noted that assessee is engaged in the business of land development and real estate broking and the main source of income of the assessee is commission receipts.

Further the assessee has shown closing balance of unsecured loan taken from others of Rs.62,17,000/- for the captioned year; whereas proceedings revealed that assessee has taken unsecured loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar of Rs.1,56,00,000/- against which he had paid interest of Rs.18,64,800/- in cash during the F.Y. 2016-2017 relevant to A.Y. 2017-2018. Therefore, the assessee has not correctly declared all the particulars of his income. By accepting cash loan of Rs.1,56,00,000/- the assessee had violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Further, the source of 4 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 interest paid in cash of Rs.18,64,800/- was also not examined by the Assessing Officer in view of the provisions of section 69C of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has not examined these issues by calling for relevant details and thereafter verified the same, the learned PCIT issued a show cause notice under section 263 of the Act dated 31.01.2024 to the assessee, the contents of which, are as under:

“02. In the above mentioned case, on verification of case records for A.Y. 2017-18 it has been observed that the assessee had filed original return of income for AY

2017-18 on 28.07.2017 declaring total income at Rs.8,08,880/-. A search action u/s.132 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act') was conducted in Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases on 26.09.2017 wherein incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Thereafter proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were initiated and the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s.153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2021 by accepting the returned income.

3. On perusal of the assessment records and information available with this office, it is seen the assessee is engaged in the business of land development

and real estate broking and the main source of the income of the assessee is commission receipt. Further, it is 5 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 observed that the assessee had shown closing balance of unsecured loans taken from others of Rs.62,17,000/- for the captioned year whereas proceedings revealed that the assessee had taken unsecured loan in cash through Shri

Sachin Nahar of Rs.1,56,00,000/- against which he had paid interest of Rs.18,64,800/- in cash during the F.Y.

2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. The AO failed to ascertain whether the assessee had has correctly disclosed all the particulars of his income for the year under consideration.

0.4. In view of the above, it is found that the no verification on the aforesaid issue has been done in the assessment proceedings by the AO. As per explanation (2) to section 263(1) of the Act an order without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

issue and therefore income has been under assessed.

Therefore, assessment order u/s.153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2021 passed by the AO for A.Y. 2017-18 appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

6 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024

6. In view of the facts and circumstances

mentioned above, the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act in the case of Shri Rajendra

Ramesh Gugale for A.Y. 2017-18 prima facie appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of the provisions of Explanation-(2)(a) to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act. I, therefore, intend to set aside/modify the assessment order within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An opportunity of being heard is therefore, given to you. You are requested to attend in person or through your authorized representative оn 02.02.2024 at 03:30 PM in my office.

7. If you have authorized any representative to attend on your behalf, please ensure that the Power of Attorney with proper court fee stamp is filed on or before

the date of hearing. If you do not wish to attend in person or through your authorized representative, you may file written submission along with necessary evidence in support of your contention before the due date of hearing.

Further, it may be noted that no adjournment will be provided and in case on non appearance/non submission of reply, order will be passed on merits.”

7 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 3.3. The assessee, in response to the same, submitted that the relevant seized documents or statements recorded if any, which are relied upon while issuing the notice may please be provided to him so that detailed and point-wise submission can be filed. The learned PCIT provided the details to the assessee. However, the assessee did not make any compliance to the statutory notice issued by him. Since the assessee had not filed any details/explanatory submission as asked for to explain his case, the learned PCIT rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer holding the same to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue with a direction to frame the assessment afresh. The relevant observations of the learned PCIT read as under :

“5. I have carefully considered the issues raised in the show cause notice issued u/s.263 of the Act and on perusal of the records and facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee had taken unsecured loan in cash through

Shri Sachin Nahar of Rs.1,58,00,000/-against which he had paid interest of Rs.18.64,800/- in cash during the F.Y.

2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had failed to ascertain whether the assessee had correctly disclosed all the particulars of his income for the year under consideration. No verification on the aforesaid issue had been done in the assessment proceedings by the 8 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024

Assessing Officer and therefore income has been under assessed. Therefore, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had not examined and verified the above issue having tax implications during the course of assessment proceedings.

Thus, issues discussed in the show-cause notice were not at all examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings.

6. In view of the above facts, it is clear the issues

as discussed in para 2 above have not been property examined, verified and enquired by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings. It has been held by various Courts that lack of enquiry on the germane issue renders assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection the following judicial pronouncements are very much relevant :

• The Hon. Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v

CIT 67 ITR 84 while taking note of the fact that the AO had concluded the assessment in "undue hurry" by passing a short, stereotyped assessment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated

29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi

Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir

9 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024

Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT

(2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83

(SC)/(2000) 159 CTR 1 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263 was justified. • In the case of Vedanta Ltd. Vs CIT [2021/124 taxmann.com 435(Bombay)/[2021] 279 Taxman 358

(Bom) it has been held that where assessment was completed without proper inquiries, Commissioner was competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction and direct Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. • In the case of Nagal Garment Industries Pvt Ltd Vs

CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 4 (Madhya Pradesh)

[03-04-2017] it has been held that where Assessing

Officer issued detailed questionnaire, in reply to which records were filed, but Assessing Officer did

10 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 not apply his mind nor did he conduct an enquiry while accepting claim of assessee although he recorded in note-sheet that reply filed by appellant was not satisfactory and did not explain all facts, assessment order was to be revised. • The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs

Shri Braham Dev Gupta in and 1162/2017 has clearly decided that Pr.

Commissioner of Income tax can invoke the provision of section 263 of Income Tax Act where AO has not made adequate enquiry and verification. In this matter, SLP of the assessee has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court. • The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Ankush Garg v & 2288/Del/2015 dated

21.05.2019, upheld the Pr.CITs action u/s 263 by holding that the order of the AO was cryptic, and was not passed after due examination and verification of certain issues and therefore, there was an error on the part of AO which led to a correct conclusion of the CIT that the order of the AO was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. • In the case of Pooja Gupta in 2018 dated 31.01.2019, the ITAT Delhi has discussed the 11 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 validity of action under section 263 in respect of penny stock matters. The Tribunal has referred to the detailed SOP issued by the CBDT, CBDT Instruction dt 16.03.2016 on penny stock/ LTCG, and other specified parameters in this order, and held that the order u/s 263 was justified since there was complete lack of inquiry with regard to the perspective for which the case was selected for scrutiny, and that the AO had merely relied on the assessee's submissions. • The decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT dated 30

March, 2015 is relevant to note as it relates to the aspect of lack of inquiry at the end of the AO for valid initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. • Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 dated

04.01.2012 has held that section 263 is a section which enables the Commissioner to have a look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authorities and to effect a correction, if so needed, particularly if the order or proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is also held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO

12 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. • Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ramesh

Kumar, ITA.No.1982/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 order dated 25.01.2019 has observed as under -

“On going through the facts, it can be observed that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry and this is a clear case of lack of enquiry not a case of inadequate enquiry. Further non application of mind by the Assessing Officer can be easily gauzed from the fact that the information available with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2

(a) of section 263.”

• Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee

Enterprises vs Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 has clearly held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return.

7. In view of the above facts and the judicial

precedents, it is seen that Assessing Officer has not properly

13 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 examined and verified the issues discussed in para 2 above and there was lack of enquiry on the same. Provision of Explanation 2 of Section 263 (1), are reproduced here under:

Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

Commissioner or Commissioner, - a. the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; b. the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; c. the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or d. the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High

Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that the Assessing Officer has failed to make necessary examination and verification of the issues

14 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 stated above while completing the assessment. I, therefore hold that assessment order for A.Y. 2017-

18 dated 26.12.2021 passed by the Assessing

Officer u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the said assessment order dated 26.12.2021 is hereby set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for examining the above issues in detail while framing the fresh assessment order. The Assessing Officer shall make necessary examination, verification and enquiries in respect of the above referred issues after giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.”

4. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :

“The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other -

On facts and in law,

1) The appellant requests for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal since there was reasonable cause on his part in not filing the appeal within prescribed time limit.

15 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024

2) The Ld. Pr. CIT erred holding that the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the assessment order for fresh verification to the file of the ld. A.O.

3) The learned Pr.CIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order under section 153C r.w.s.143(3) was passed by the learned Assessing Officer after taking approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and hence, he had no power to revise the said assessment order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

4) The ld. Pr.CIT erred in holding that the Id. A.O. had failed to verify the issue regarding unsecured loan taken in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar and the payment of interest thereon and hence, the assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

5) The ld. Pr.CIT failed to appreciate that the appellant had not taken any loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar and had not paid any interest thereon and hence, thus, there was no reason to hold that the assessment order passed u/s.153C was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 6) The ld. Pr.CIT erred in not appreciating that there was no evidence with the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order that the assessee had taken any 16 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 unsecured loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar and accordingly, there was no reason to hold that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

7) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not press grounds of appeal no.3, for which, the Learned DR has no objection. We, therefore, dismiss ground no.3 as not pressed.

6. So far as the other grounds are concerned, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee strongly challenged the order of the PCIT in invoking provisions of sec.263 of the Act.

He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case on the basis of search in the premises of Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases from where certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee were found, issued notice u/sec.153C of the Act to the assessee and thereafter, completed the assessment u/sec.153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2021 accepting the returned income of Rs.8,08,880/-. He submitted that the learned PCIT in the order passed u/sec.263 has set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee had taken unsecured loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar of Rs.1,56,00,000/- which was found from the premises of Shri Sachin Nahar during the course of search at his place on 17 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 04.08.2017. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that this is a case of unabated assessment and addition, if any, can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Referring to Pages-11 to 20 of the paper book, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the satisfaction recorded u/sec.153C of the Act in the case of the assessee on the basis of search conducted on Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases on 26.09.2017.

He submitted that no satisfaction u/sec.153C was recorded in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar on the basis of the other search that took place on 04.08.2017. He submitted that once there is no satisfaction recorded in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar and that there is no evidence or material belonging or pertaining to the assessee were found, the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition in the hands of the assessee. Further the addition, if any, could have been made either by issuing notice u/sec.153C(1) or resorting to the provisions of sec.148. Therefore, once there is no satisfaction recorded in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar that certain entries or documents belong to the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition merely on the basis of an email dated 19.03.2021.

6.1. Referring to the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore reported in [2021] 123

18 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 taxmann.com 255 (Bangalore-Trib.); Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assessment proceedings had already been completed prior to date of search under section 132, scope of making assessment under section 153C would be limited only to undisclosed income of assessee detected during search of some other person.

6.2. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in [2024] 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka); he submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the said decision has held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/sec.153C for each assessment year and consolidated satisfaction note recorded for the different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. He submitted that the Revenue has filed SLP against the said decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the same on 20.08.2024 as reported in [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) vide CIT(A) vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma.

6.3. He submitted that the documents found from Shri Sachin Nahar group of cases belong to Shri Sachin Nahar and therefore, provisions of Sec.153C is outside the purview in the case of the assessee. He also relied on the decision of the 19 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society reported in [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC). He submitted that since there are two searches i.e., in the case of Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases and another in the case of Shri Sachin Nahale and there is only one satisfaction note recorded on the basis of search at Dhamale Group of cases that too a combined satisfaction note for all the years which itself is invalid. Therefore, in absence of separate satisfaction note in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar, the Assessing Officer could not have made any addition in the case of the assessee without resorting to either a separate 153C notice or through sec.148. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned PCIT is not in accordance with law and has to be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed.

20 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 DR also relied on the following decisions in support of his contention :

243 ITR 83 (SC);

2. Vedanta Ltd., vs. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 435

(Bom.) (HC);

3. Ashok Leyland Ltd., vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Madras)

(HC);

4. Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT [2020] 113

taxmann.com 4 (Madhya Pradesh) (HC);

5. Pr.CIT vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta AIRONLINE 2018 DEL

1529 (HC);

Delhi ‘B’ Bench, New Delhi ITA.No.2287 &

2288/Del./2015, Order dated 21.05.2019.

21 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 his return of income disclosing total income of Rs.8,08,880/- which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/sec.143(3)/153C of the Act on 26.12.2021. We find the learned PCIT invoked the provisions of sec.263 of the Act on the ground that assessee had taken unsecured loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar of Rs.1,56,00,000/- against which he paid interest of Rs.18,64,800/- in cash during the assessment year 2017-2018 which was found during the course of search at the premises of Shri Sachin Nahar on 04.08.2017 and an email to this effect was sent to the Assessing Officer on 19.03.2021. However, the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the same and therefore, the order has become erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to frame the assessment afresh, the reasons of which, have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.

8.1. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that on the basis of search at the premises of Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases, a combined satisfaction note u/sec.153C of the Act has been prepared for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 which itself is not in accordance with law in view of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in [2024] 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka), according to which,

22 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/sec.153C for each assessment year separately and a consolidated satisfaction note recorded for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. It is also his submission that on the basis of search at the premises of Shri Sachin Nahar no satisfaction note has been recorded.

According to him, the provisions of sec.153C have to be resorted to where any books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to or any information contained therein relates to the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made merely on the basis of an email dated 19.03.2021 without resorting to the provisions of sec.153C or sec.148.

8.2. We find some force in the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Assessee. On a pointed query by the Bench to find-out as to whether any penalty proceedings u/sec.271D has been initiated for the contravention of sec.269SS of the Act in respect of unsecured cash loan received by the assessee, the Learned DR filed the following report before the Bench, the details of which are as under :

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),PUNE Aaykar Sadan, 6th Floor, Room No.632, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune-411037. Phone No. 020-24263632 Email Id:pune.dcit.cen2.3@incometax.gov.in No. PN/ACIT CC-2(3)/ITAT/Rajendra R. Gugale/2024-25 Date 21.10.2024

23 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 To The Commissioner of Income Tax(DR), ITAT-11, Pune. Pune.

Sir,

Ref:- Your office e-mail dated 18/10/2024 (03:23 PM)

Kindly refer to the above.

3. In this regard, the assessment records in the above mentioned case is enclosed herewith (2 Volumes, Vol-1 36 Pages & Vol-11-70 Pages).

The set-aside proceedings are in progress as on date.

5. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that on analysis of the incriminating materials seized during another

25 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 search action u/s.132 of the Act conducted on 04/08/2017 in the case of Sachin Nahar, it is very clear that the assessee has received cash loan of Rs.1,56,00,000/- and made interest payment of Rs.18,64,800/- for the period under consideration as per the evidences seized during the search proceedings in the case of Sachin Nahar, forwarded to this office by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune vide mail dated 19/03/2021. Hence, the necessary proposal for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271D of the Act for contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act will be submitted by this office after completion of this set-aside proceedings currently in progress.