KUSUM DEVI GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2099/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Kusum Devi Goyal, ACIT, Flat No.A-31, Antarisksh Apt., New Vs. Central Circle – 4(2), Town Society, Rohoni Sec – 14, Kolkata New Delhi – 110085, Delhi [PAN: ACUPG7287P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms Sonam Bajoria, AR Respondent by: Shri B. S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 28.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.

ITA No.2099/Kol/2026/A.Y.2021-22 Kusum Devi Goyal vs. ACIT 3. The issue in Ground No.1 is against the imposition of penalty u/s 271DA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’) on the basis of unsigned agreement alleging receipt of advance of Rs.25,00,000/-, which was never materialized and executed . 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 15.03.2022, declaring total income of Rs.32,37,730/-. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 24.02.2022 and subsequent dates against the Naxal Group of cases. The case of the assessee was also covered for action u/s 132 of the Act. An agreement was retrieved from the seized document/item namely PRG HD/1, which was mobile phone of Shri Prithiviraj Goyal and the paper is unsigned and unstamped agreement for sale dated 15.03.2021 between Smt. Kusum Devi Goyal, seller and M/s Swastil Vilas Pvt. (Purchaser). As per the agreement for sale, the assessee, Smt. Kusum Devi Goyal had received Rs.25,00,000/- in cash as advance, which is in contravention of the provisions of section 269ST of the Act attracting u/s 271D of the Act. Finally, the AO levied the penalty vide order dated 30.03.2023 passed u/s 271DA of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty initiated by the AO.

ITA No.2099/Kol/2026/A.Y.2021-22 Kusum Devi Goyal vs. ACIT validity or veracity in law and Department cannot impute the assessee to have any transaction is stated in the agreement to sell. The AO failed to substantiate with evidence that the assessee has in fact sold the property during the year under consideration. Therefore, in our opinion said document has no legal sanctity and cannot be relied. Accordingly, we hold that the same cannot be a basis for levying the penalty on the assessee u/s 271DA. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 11/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 11/09/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file. 6.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // (Manish Bhoi) Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata