RANJU DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4344/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of ignorance of tax provisions and acceptance of cash payment. However, the explanation that part of the payment was received through cheque could not be substantiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee received cash payments of Rs. 4,28,330/- from a property sale, which was one-third of the total cash received jointly with two others. The lower authorities held this contravention of Section 269SS and imposed a penalty under Section 271D.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D for receiving cash payment in contravention of Section 269SS is sustainable when the assessee claims ignorance of tax provisions and fails to prove alternative payment methods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Akash Ojha, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surbendu Thakur, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4344/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 RANJU DEVI, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.No.4516, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Income Tax Office, Ward 35(1), Gali Opp. Shora Kothi, Main Delhi. Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, Delhi 110055. PAN No. CRJPD2367P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Revenue by Shri Surbendu Thakur, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement on 01.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 25.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has imposed a penalty u/s 271D of the Act for receiving payments in cash amounting to Rs.4,28,330/-. It is seen from the orders of authorities below that the assessee jointly sold a property where cash payments of Rs.12,85,000/- was received by the assessee along with two other persons. Thereafter, one third amount, being Rs.4,28,330/-, was held to be in contravention of 269SS of the Act.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also she could not succeed on the basis of finding given in the body of the impugned order. It was held that the assessee received the impugned payment in cash and any explanation that some part of which was received through cheque, could not be proved.

1.3 The assessee has now approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the action of authorities below.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR stated that the assessee was entirely ignorant of taxation provisions and thereafter had accepted some payment in cash. The Ld. AR read out the explanation submitted before the Ld. AO and for the sake of capturing the essence of the same, we may extract it as under: -

“This is to confirm that I Ranju Devi having PAN card number CRJPD2369P have sold the part of property No.4707 to 4709, Ward No. XV Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi – 110055 to Mrs. Rukmesh Kumari Rathor (PAN : BRWPR5858R) By Sale Deed dated 18th September, 2017 registered with Sub Registrar III, New Delhi at Sr. No.7562 on 19.09.2017. The total consideration of Rs.12,85,000/- was paid to me is attached in PDF in the name of justification. I have received the above mentioned amount from Rukmesh Kumari Rathor as per the amount available with her. She has given me cash from time to time as per the sources which to my knowledge was earnings from her daily business and savings. I have received amount in the form of NEFT and Cheque also. During the period of these transactions my mother in law was severely ill due to heart attack which became a chronic disease for her till date. Her daily medicine cost was around 3000-4000. Me being not so educated took some parts of the payment in cash as my mother in law was hospitalized and I had to pay for her daily medicines and other medical tests cost. I don’t know how to operate ATM or other Banking Transactions with confidence since I have only did my schooling till 8th class, which left me uneducated. The agreement amount was Rs.12.85 lakhs only and 2 the amount was distributed evenly between three people 1. Ranju Devi, 2. Brajesh Kumar, 3. Rajesh Kumari.” The Ld. AR concluded his argument by stating that due to ignorance of law and requirement of cash the assessee has inadvertently violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and she deserved consideration u/s 273B of the Act.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have heard the Ld. AR/DR and we have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the prayer of the assessee before the authorities below and specifically before the Ld. AO, as extracted (supra), would lend credence to the fact that the infraction of law was inadvertent and motivated by a need for cash. We are inclined to grant relief to the assessee under the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, which is specifically for cases of this kind where “reasonable cause” is visible at first glance. We direct the deletion of the impugned penalty accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →