LILABATI RATH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 360/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 269SS, as amended, applies to cash receipts for immovable property transactions. However, it also considered the 'reasonable cause' defense under Section 273B.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 12,15,500/- in cash for the sale of immovable property. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 269SS and levied penalty under Section 271D.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 269SS applies to cash received for immovable property sales, and if a reasonable cause exists for the violation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 29/05/2026Pronounced: 29/05/2026

PerBench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25/02/2026 against the confirmation of penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had sold immovable property and had received sales consideration of Rs.12,15,500/- in cash. It was the submi

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 269SS

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →