AMIR AHMED,DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6149/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2026AY 2017-186 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 proceedings under Section 271D were not initiated in the corresponding assessment proceedings. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalties.

What were the facts?

The assessees received a part of their sale consideration for immovable properties in cash, allegedly violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Penalties under Section 271D were levied and upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under Section 271D are valid if not initiated in the assessment proceedings. Whether receiving sale consideration in cash for immovable property attracts penalty under Section 271D.

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri W. A. Khan, Adv, Shri Monis Khan, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr DR
Hearing: 21.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6149/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Amir Ahmed 2208/13, Bazar Sita Ram, Tax Jama Masjid, Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi- 110006 New Delhi-02 PAN: AEFPA7187M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 6150/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Naved Ahmed 245, Meena Bazar, Jama Tax Masjid, Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi- 110006 New Delhi-02 PAN: CFXPA0004E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri W. A. Khan, Adv. Shri Monis Khan, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr DR Date of hearing 21.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2026

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These instant cases ITA Nos. 6149 & 6150/Del/2024, involve the twin assessees herein Shri Amir Ahmed and Shri Naved

ITA No.6149, 6150/Del/2024

Ahmed, for assessment years 2017-18, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, “CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DINs and Orders No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1040737932(1)& ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043550780(1), dated 15.03.2022 & 23.06.2022, involving proceedings u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’.

Heard both the assessees as well as the department at length. Case files perused.

2.

For the reasons stated herein in this twin assessee’s respective condonation petition, explaining delay(s) of 945 days each as on account of circumstances beyond control going unrebutted from the Revenue side, we hereby condone the same in the light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Next comes both these assessee’s identical sole substantive ground directed against the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding findings levying section 271D penalty (ies) in issue which stand upheld in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. Both of them hold these twin assessees/appellants to have violated 2 | P a g e

ITA No.6149, 6150/Del/2024

section 269SS of the Act in having received a part of their respective sale consideration (s) in lieu of transfer of immovable properties as attracting the impugned penalty.

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel raises his first and foremost legal argumenta that neither of the Assessing Officer herein had initiated the impugned penalty (ies) in the corresponding assessment (s) which has gone unrebutted from the revenue side. This tribunal’s recent decision in M/s Gayatri Villa vs DCIT in ITA Nos. 615 & 616/Del/2024 dated 31.05.2024 has already settled the very issue that such a non-compliance is indeed fatal to the penalty herein; against the department reading as under:

3 | P a g e

ITA No.6149, 6150/Del/2024

4 | P a g e

ITA No.6149, 6150/Del/2024

5.

We adopt the learned co-ordinate bench’s above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to delete the impugned identical section 271D penalty (ies) levied in theses assessees’s hands in very terms.

5 | P a g e

ITA No.6149, 6150/Del/2024

6.

Both these assessees’s as many appeals ITA Nos. 6149 & 6150/Del/2024 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →