NAMITA PANIGRAHY,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 652/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in the hands of the assessee in her individual capacity. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repeatedly informed the AO and the CIT(A) that the transaction was undertaken by M/s OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A perusal of the sale deed confirmed that the transaction was between the company and Shri Amulya Kumar Padhi, and not between the assessee in her individual capacity and the buyer. Since the assessee had not personally conducted the transfer of the immovable property, the penalty could not be levied on her individually. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Namita Panigrahy, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal was delayed by 23 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2018-2019. The assessee's company, M/s OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., sold an immovable property for Rs. 20,68,680/- in cash. The assessee, a director in the company, argued that the transaction was by the company and not by her in her individual capacity. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) treated the assessee as having sold the property and levied a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in the hands of the assessee in her individual capacity when the transaction of sale of immovable property was undertaken by a company in which she is a director? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the sale of the immovable property was conducted by M/s OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., and not by her in her individual capacity. She had duly intimated this fact to the AO and the CIT(A). The sale deed clearly shows the transaction was between the company and the buyer, Shri Amulya Kumar Padhi. Therefore, the penalty levied on her individually is not justified. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), vehemently supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A), implying that the penalty was correctly levied on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 06/10/2026Pronounced: 06/10/2026

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,कटकन्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.652/CTK/2026 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Namita Panigrahy Vs ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur Forest Colony, Courtpetta Berhampur, Ganjam-760004 PAN No. : ADZPP 4624 P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 06/10/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2026 आदेश / 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, in appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10448607, dated 13/03/2026 for the assessment year 2018-2019 confirming the penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 23 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay. Ld. Sr. DR also did not object to condone the same. Accordingly, considering the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee in regard to condonation of delay which are not found

2 ITA No.652/CTK/2026 to be false, we condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that during the impugned assessment year 2018-19, M/s. OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. in which the assessee is the director, had sold the immovable property being a flat for consideration of Rs.20,68,680/- in cash to one Shri Amulya Kumar Padhi. It was submission that the company had sold the property and the assessee had not sold the property. It was submission the assessee had intimated the AO as also the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not done the transaction but the transaction has been done by the company. However, the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the explanation of the assessee treated the assessee in her individual capacity and as having sold the immovable property in cash. It was submission that the transaction does not belong to the assessee. It belongs to the company in which the assessee is the director and the assessee had signed the document of transfer as the director of the company M/s OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPER PVT Ltd. It was submission that the penalty as levied u/s.271D of the Act is liable to be cancelled. 5. In reply, the Ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee had repeatedly written both to the AO and to the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not done the transaction and that M/s OMSAI SUDHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, is the

3 ITA No.652/CTK/2026 company which has sold the flat no.306 in Anant Niwas in Ganjam. It is also noticed that the assessee has attached the sale deed. The sale deed also clearly shows that the transaction is between the company and Shri Amulya Kumar Padhi. The transaction is not between the assessee in her individual capacity and Shri Amulya Kumar Padhi. This being so, as the assessee had not done the transfer of the immovable property, obviously the penalty cannot be levied in the hands of the assessee in her individual capacity. This being so, the penalty as levied u/s. 271D of the Act by the AO and as confirmed by the CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 06/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रनतललपपअग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 4. 5. ववभागीयप्रतततनधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack गार्डफाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावपतप्रतत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →