APARNA MALHOTRA,SOUTH DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL RANGE 4, NEW DELHI

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 34 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities action levying section 271DA penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 23.09.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty action. The Revenue more particularly submits that the assessee herein has been found to have entered in this specified transactions in cash violating section 269ST of the Act which has made her liable for the impugned penalty. There could be hardly any dispute between the parties that as against section 269SS or 269T involving cash loans etc, the impugned penalty is leviable in case when the concerned assessee enters in any transaction than the those specified herein above namely business transactions etc. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s section 153C satisfaction at page 135 of the paperbook that the amounts concerned are cash payments; at the best covered u/s 269S or 269T without prejudice to her stand all along, and not in the nature of business transactions attracting section 269ST or section 271DA of the Act. This clinching factual position as per the satisfaction note has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.