LIKHAMARAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6482/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 December 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D/271E of the Act can only be initiated if there are pending assessment proceedings or proceedings arising from an assessment order. Since no assessment proceedings were initiated in the assessee's case, the penalty is not valid.

What were the facts?

The assessee was found in possession of cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- which was seized, and the assessee could not substantiate the source. Consequently, a penalty under Section 271D was levied for contravening Section 269SS, and this was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271D can be levied in the absence of assessment proceedings. Whether the penalty was time-barred under Section 275.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 275

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 09.10.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) / CIT(A).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,99,500/- under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite there being no assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, and without appreciating that in the absence of a valid assessment order, the penalty proceedings were without juri iction and bad in law.

2 Likhmaram, Mumbai.

2.

On

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →