NARESH KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANIPAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 8101/Del/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 ITA No. 8102/Del/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 Naresh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o. J B Sharma, Advocate Ward-1, 72, BMK Market, Panipat, Nr. Hotel Hive, Haryana G T Road, Panipat, Haryana �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: DYLPK9365J Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Shri J B Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders dated 11.11.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 8101 & 8102/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment orders dated 25.09.2024 and 24.09.2024 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) u/s 271D and 271E of the Act respectively for assessment year 2016-17.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 8101 & 8102/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar 3. On above facts, during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had violated section 269T of the Act by repaying cash of Rs. 15,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- to Shri Kuldeep, Sh. Satyapal and Sh. Jasbir respectively. The penalty proceeding u/s 271E of the Act, Show cause notice dated 16.03.2024, 05.06.2024 and 22.08.2024 were issued. After that the assessee submitted replies. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 24.09.2024 imposed penalty of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s 271E of the Act.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 8101 & 8102/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar page No. 1. Bank statement of the Assessee 01-02 2. Death Certificate of Partap-Father of assessee 03-04 3. Documents of Sh. Jasbir-farmer 05-16 4. Documents of Sh. Satpal Singh 17-46 5.Documents of Sh. Kuldeep 47-56 6. Copy of show cause notice dated 28.02.2024 57-66

6.1 The reliance was placed on order dated 15.01.2025 of ITAT Pune in ITA No. 1600/Pun. /2024 titled as Nilons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned orders. 8. From examination of record in light of the aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2025 confirmed the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalties of Rs. 34,00,000/- each u/s 271D and 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act for receiving and returning amounts of Rs. 15,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- from Sh. Shri Kuldeep, Sh. Satyapal and Sh. Jasbir respectively and depositing the same in the bank accounts. Since the deal of purchase of agricultural land could not be completed due to death of his father, amounts were returned after six months to the farmers in cash. The appellant/assessee had deposited Rs. 1,20,01,000/- in his bank account. The appellant/assessee submitted his bank statements page No. 1 and 2 of paper book, death certificate of his father page No. 3 and 4 of paper book, affidavits, bank account statement,

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 8101 & 8102/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar copy of revenue record, Jamabandi of Jasbir page No. 7 to 16 of paper book, documents i.e. affidavit, bank statement of Satyapal Singh page No. 17 to 46 of paper book, documents i.e. affidavit and bank statement of copy, jamabandi of Kuldip page No. 47 to 56 of paper book in support of submissions. 9. From above documents and submissions, it is evident that the appellant/assessee had a reasonable cause for violation of provision of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 10. As per order dated 15.01.2025 of ITAT Pune in ITA No. 1600/Pun./2024 titled as Nilons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in para No. 8.5 is observed as under: “8.5 We find when the Revenue challenged the above order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue as reported in [2019] 102 taxmann.com 57(SC). Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, respectfully following the same, we are of the considered opinion that there is a ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of the assessee for such violation. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/sec. 271E of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.” 11. In view of the above material facts of reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for violation of provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the act, the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO being illegal, is set aside. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accepted.

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 8101 & 8102/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar 12. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant/assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI