SUJATHA VADDANAPU,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, NALGONDA

ITA 2048/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2020-2119 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs, being consideration for the transfer of immovable property received at the time of registration, constitutes a "specified sum" under Explanation (iv) to Section 269SS of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the definition of "specified sum" in Section 269SS is broad, covering money receivable in relation to the transfer of immovable property, whether as advance or otherwise, and irrespective of whether the transfer takes place. It noted that this definition is distinct from the narrower definition of "specified advance" in Section 269T. Consequently, since the transaction is governed by Section 269SS, it is expressly excluded from the purview of Section 269ST by virtue of Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 269ST. As the penalty under Section 271DA is levied for contravention of Section 269ST, and the transaction does not fall under Section 269ST, the statutory basis for levying the penalty under Section 271DA is absent. The Tribunal deleted the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- levied under Section 271DA. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Sujatha Vaddanapu, is appealing an order of the NFAC Delhi, dated 07.04.2026, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer completed reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144B on 12.02.2025. The assessee, jointly with her husband, sold an immovable property for Rs. 34 lakhs on 16.07.2019, receiving Rs. 4 lakhs in cash. The Assessing Officer attributed Rs. 2 lakhs of this cash receipt to the assessee. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271DA were initiated for contravention of section 269ST. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was levied under section 271DA on 20.08.2025. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty. The assessee is now before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash towards sale consideration of immovable property, received at the time of registration, constitutes a contravention of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby attracting penalty under Section 271DA. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs falls within the definition of a "specified sum" under Explanation (iv) to Section 269SS of the Act. Consequently, the applicable provision for contravention should be Section 269SS, with the corresponding penalty under Section 271D, not Section 269ST and Section 271DA. The assessee relied on the definition of "specified sum" in Section 269SS. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee received Rs. 2 lakhs in cash, and this transaction was covered by Section 269ST of the Act. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271DA was rightly levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D,Section 269ST,Section 271DA,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 269T

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 24/08/2026

Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Smt. Sujatha Vaddanapu (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 07.04.2026 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

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 →