HI-TECH EDIFICE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 446/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 June 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271D to be validly imposed, the AO must record satisfaction regarding the violation of Section 269SS during the assessment proceedings. Since no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO in this case, the penalty was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/- levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record his satisfaction regarding the violation of Section 269SS before imposing the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271D can be levied without the AO recording satisfaction of a violation of Section 269SS during assessment proceedings.

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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Ojha, CA and Shri Aniket Ojha, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR
Hearing: 05/06/2026Pronounced: 05/06/2026

Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 7.3.2026 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10043/2020-21 for the assessment year 2017-18, confirming the penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- levied u/s.271D of the Act.

2.

Shri Abhishek Ojha, CA and Shri Aniket Ojha, Adv appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s.143(3) on 30.12.2019, has not recorded his satisfaction

2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 regarding the violation u/s 269SS and thereby imposing penalty u/s.271D of the A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →