MILAN CHANDRA NATH,MARIGAON vs. ADDL./JOINT CIT R-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 68/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 May 2026AY 2019-20206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in the interest of substantive justice, as it was due to a lack of timely legal advice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee received cash exceeding ₹20,000/- on the sale of immovable property, violating Section 269SS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 47-day delay in filing, without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned, and whether the penalty under Section 271D was leviable without considering reasonable cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D,Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 11.12.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without properly appreciating the reasons and explanation furnished by the appellant seeking condonation of delay. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the delay of 47 days was neither willful nor deliberate.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and that there existed sufficient and reasonable cause warranting condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to apply settled principles of law that procedural requirements are intended to advance the cause of justice and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, particularly where refusal to condone delay results in denial of adjudication on merits.

4.

The learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Guwahati, erred in law and on facts in imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,40,000 under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned penalty authority failed to appreciate that levy of penalty under Section 271D is not automatic upon alleged contravention of Section 269SS and that such penalty is subject to the existence of circumstances justifying invocation of penal provisions.

6.

The learned penalty authority erred in not appreciating that, as clarified in CBDT Circular No. 19/2015 dated 27/11/2015, the object of Section 269SS is to curb generation and circulation of unaccounted money, and penalty under Section 271D cannot be sustained where there is no element of black money or tax evasion.

7.

The learned penalty authority failed to appreciate that: (a) the transaction was a bona fide sale of rural agricultural land for meeting the expenses of the appellants daughters marriage, (b) no capital gains tax arose on the sale of agricultural land, (c) the entire sale consideration was utilized for legitimate family purposes, (d) there was no element of tax evasion or generation of unaccounted money and (e) the transaction was duly registered and fully documented.

8.

The learned penalty authority failed to consider that the appellant, being a simple individual with basic matriculate education from a remote rural area and working as a fourth-grade government employee, was not aware of the technical provisions of Section 269SS and that there was no willful or deliberate violation of law.

9.

The learned penalty authority erred in not appreciating that there existed reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B for the alleged failure to comply with Section 269SS, having regard to : (a) the sale of land situated in a remote rural village, (b) the urgent necessity to meet daughters marriage expenses, (c) the appellants poor financial condition and limited awareness of complex tax laws and (d) the appellant being a low-salaried fourth-grade government employee with basic education.

10.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that in this case, information was received from Addl. Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Guwahati containing details of identified cases where cash of ₹20,000/- or more had been received on sale of immovable property. On perusal of the information received, it was observed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') that Shri Milan Chandra Nath had sold a piece of land and received consideration amount in cash exceeding ₹20,000/- which was in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act and which attracted penalty provisions u/s 271D of the Act. Accordingly, the Addl. CIT, Range-1, Guwahati initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act; however, the assessee failed to furnish the submission and did not comply to any of the notices issued. On careful examination of the sale deed executed on 02.08.2018, it was observed that the assessee had sold an immovable property i.e. a plot of land measuring 03 (Three) Katha covered by Patta no. 436, Dag no. 677 Part No. 8.03 of Mouza - Mikir Veta, Chatribari, District-Morigaon, Assam for total sale consideration of ₹8,40,000/- by cash vide sale deed dated 02.08.2018. Since the assessee had no explanation to offer to support his case despite being provided with ample opportunities, therefore, it was concluded that it was a clear case of violation of section 269SS of the Act and penalty u/s 271D of the Act was imposed amounting to ₹8,40,000/- for AY 2019-20. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as per his findings as under:

“3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 271D was made on 14.12.2022 which got served upon the appellant on 16.12.2022 but the appeal was filed on 04.03.2023 i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 271D. The petition of the appellant regarding late filing of appeal is carefully considered but is not acceptable on merit as the appellant has itself declared in form 35 that the order was received on 16.12.2022, this shows the callous attitude towards the statutory notices. The appellant did not file any documentary evidence which prevent it from filing the appeal within statutory time limits. Therefore, the appellant has not given any sufficient reason which prevented it to file appeal in time. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. It should be noted that the legislature has provided time limits for certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have to be observed. It is compliance requirements imposed by law in the interest of proper regulation of the Act. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Lava International Ltd Vs CBDT in Civil writ petition No. 8293/2024 dated 30.5.2024 has stated that power of condonation can be exercised to delay with the extraordinary circumstances only which would have led to delay in statutory compliance and the same cannot be exercises routinely. In the present case, the cause stated by the appellant for delay in filing of appeal is not an extraordinary cause and therefore, this is not a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. The appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days of the receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done so. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.

4.

In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on merits.

5.

In result, the appeal is disposed off.”

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

6.

We have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Ld. DR. The Bench was of the view that the delay ought to have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of substantive justice, as the same had occurred on account of not receiving proper legal advice in time. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th May, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 06.05.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Milan Chandra Nath, Habiborangabari, District-Marigaon, Assam, 782103. 2. ITO, Ward-Nagaon.

3.

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →