ASHOK RAMANLAL TAMBOLI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 344/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 August 2026AY 2021-224 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D should be deleted. This was based on the assessee's bonafide belief of not knowing the provisions and the fact that a co-sharer in an identical transaction had their penalty proceedings dropped.

What were the facts?

The assessee received a portion of sale consideration for a property in cash, which was not initially disclosed but later declared in a revised return. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty for violating Section 269SS.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271D is leviable for accepting sale consideration in cash when the assessee claims ignorance of the law and similar cases have had penalties dropped.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R, Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05/05/2026Pronounced: 03/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli बनाम Income Tax Officer / D-11, Amin Park, Ward 3(1)(4), Vs. Vishwamitri Railway Station Vadodara R Manjalpur, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390011 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAYPT7427N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 05/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement 03/08/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 21.01.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22.

ITA No.344/Ahd/2026[Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli vs. ITO] A.Y. 2021-22 - 2 –

2.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.31,95,813/- levied by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) u/s. 271D of the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with other co-owners sold a property at a consideration of Rs.27,90,00,000/-. The assessee received his share of the sale consideration at Rs.1,16,25,000/- as per the sale deed. Apart from this amount, the assessee also received Rs.31,95,813/- as sale proceeds in cash. Though, the assessee, as advised, declared his share of sale consideration as per the sale deed in the return of income, however, did not disclose the amount of sale consideration received in cash. However, the assessee filed a revised return and declared the said cash amount of sale consideration therein. The AO accepted the revised return, however, levied penalty u/s 271D of the Act for receiving the sale consideration of Rs.31,95,813/- in cash in violation of provision of Section 269SS of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO.

4.

Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it was duly explained before the lower authorities that the assessee and his family members were agriculturists and were not aware of the relevant provisions of the Act prohibiting acceptance of sale consideration in cash. It was further explained that the assessee and his family members were in dire need of

ITA No.344/Ahd/2026[Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli vs. ITO] A.Y. 2021-22 - 3 –

funds, therefore, they collectively decided to sell their ancestral property. The purchasers were willing to purchase the property only if, the assessee and his family members would accept partial amount in cheque and partial amount in cash. Since, the assessee and his family members had no choice, but to accept the partial amount in cash in lieu of sale of the property because they were in dire need of funds, therefore, they acceded to the condition of the purchasers to accept partial amount in cash. That the assessees were not aware that the same would be in any manner a violation of Income Tax Provisions. Ld. AR of the assessee has further submitted that when the assessee and his family members came to know that they were supposed to disclose the entire sale consideration including the amount received in cash, they immediately filed revised return of income, even prior to issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee and his family members were under bonafide belief that they have not committed any violation of law in accepting the partial amount in cash out of sale consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further brought our attention to the order passed in case of co-sharer, namely, Jayaben Ramanlal Tamboli, PAN No. AFCPT8501L, order dated 25.09.2024, wherein, in identical facts and circumstances, in relation to same transaction of sale of land, penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were initiated by the AO, however, after considering the submissions made by the said co-sharer who had sold the property in question alongwith the assessee, the AO accepted the explanation and no

ITA No.344/Ahd/2026[Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli vs. ITO] A.Y. 2021-22 - 4 –

adverse inference was drawn against the said assessee and the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were dropped. Since, the said case is relating to the same transaction of the sale of the property and since, in the case of co-sharer, the AO has dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act, hence, the case of the assessee being on equal footing and the assessee having explained the reasons for acceptance of small amount in cash out of total sale consideration and duly offered the said sale consideration for taxation, the impugned penalty in the case of the assessee is ordered to be deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

This Order pronounced on 03/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 03/08/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →