ABBAYI SUNKARA,ANAPARTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 302/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 September 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the assessment order does not record the necessary satisfaction for their initiation. The subsequent initiation of penalty proceedings by another authority cannot cure this fundamental defect.

What were the facts?

The assessee accepted sale consideration for an immovable property in cash, violating Section 269SS. Penalty proceedings under Section 271D were initiated later by a different authority, not based on any satisfaction recorded in the original assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271D can be levied without requisite satisfaction recorded in the assessment order. Whether subsequent initiation of penalty proceedings by a different authority can validate the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 143(3),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 07.01.2026, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi, under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) dated 22.08.2021for the assessment year 2017-18. The asse

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 →