CHINMAY RANJAN DAS,GANJAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, GANJAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 179/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the amounts were received by cheques, there was no violation of Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271D was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 17,70,000/- through three cheques for the sale of immovable property. The Assessing Officer treated this as a violation of Section 269SS, leading to a penalty under Section 271D.

What were the issues?

Whether receiving sale consideration through cheques constitutes a violation of Section 269SS and warrants a penalty under Section 271D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D

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 S.K.Sarangi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27/05/2026Pronounced: 27/05/2026

1 ITA No.179/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.179/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chinmaya Ranjan Das Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ganjam S/O Bijaya Kumar Das, College Square, Aska, Ganjam, 761111 PAN/GIR No. ATQPD 4908 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 02/12/2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10265438 for the assessment year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi, 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 received three cheques totaling to Rs.17,70,000/-. The assessee had sold immovable property alongwith furniture and fixtures. The immovable property was sold at Rs.14,36,600/-. Ld AR has placed

2 ITA No.179/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

before us the copy of the bank certificate mentioning the details of cheques which reads as follows: “

4.

It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has erroneously treated the sales consideration as having been received in violation of section 269SS of the Act. It was the submission that the penalty levied may be cancelled. 5. Ld AR fairly agreed that there was no representation before the ld CIT(A), which has resulted confirmation of penalty.

3 ITA No.179/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

6.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that if the payments have been received by cheques and bank has certified the same, it is not in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the bank certificate issued by State Bank of India clearly shows that the amount of Rs.17,70,000/- was received in three cheques. As it is noticed that the amounts had been received by cheques, obviously, it cannot be said that there is violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, which could lead to penalty u/s.271D of the Act. This being so, the penalty levied u/s.271D is directed to be deleted. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 27/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant: Chinmaya Ranjan Das S/O Bijaya Kumar Das, College Square, Aska, Ganjam, 761111

2.

The Respondent: ITO, Ward-1, Ganjam 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Asst. Registrar. ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 269SS

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →