PRABHAVATIBEN KANTIBHAI TAMBOLI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to delete the penalty of Rs.42,61,082/- levied upon the assessee. The decision was based on respectfully following the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli (ITA No. 344/AHD/2026), which involved identical facts and circumstances concerning the same property sale transaction. The Tribunal noted that the Learned Departmental Representative could not distinguish the cited decision. The reasoning adopted in the cited case, which was accepted by the Tribunal in the present appeal, involved the assessee and their family members being agriculturists, unaware of the prohibition on cash transactions, and accepting cash due to dire financial need. The fact that the cash amount was subsequently declared in a revised return and that penalty proceedings were dropped in the case of another co-sharer for the same transaction were also considered significant. The ratio decidendi is that if a co-owner in a property sale transaction, facing similar circumstances of unawareness and financial compulsion, has had the penalty under Section 271D deleted by a Co-ordinate Bench, then the penalty in the present case should also be deleted, especially when the revenue cannot distinguish the precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Prabhavatiben Kantibhai Tamboli, filed an appeal against the order dated 20/03/2026 passed by the CIT(A)-6, Chennai, which dismissed her appeal against an assessment order dated 18/09/2024 passed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2021-2022. The dispute concerns the levy of a penalty of Rs.42,61,082/-. The assessee, along with co-owners, sold an immovable property for Rs.27,90,00,000/-. The assessee's share of sale consideration was Rs.1,16,25,000/- as per the sale deed, but she also received Rs.31,95,813/- in cash. While the sale deed amount was declared, the cash component was initially not disclosed but was later declared in a revised return. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return but levied a penalty under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.42,61,082/- under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the penalty under Section 271D should be deleted. They relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of a co-owner, Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli (ITA No. 344/AHD/2026), which dealt with identical facts and circumstances. In that case, the Tribunal had deleted the penalty levied under Section 271D. The assessee also submitted that they and their family members were agriculturists, unaware of the provisions prohibiting cash transactions, and were in dire need of funds, compelling them to accept partial payment in cash. They also pointed to a case of another co-sharer, Jayaben Ramanlal Tamboli, where penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO after considering similar explanations. Revenue's contention: The Learned Departmental Representative could not distinguish the Co-ordinate Bench's decision relied upon by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 20/03/2026, passed by the commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-6, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 18/09/2024, passed under Section 271of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
NFAC has erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.42,61,082/-u/s 271D of the Act.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act in relation to transaction of sale of immovable property by the Assessee along with other co-owners. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed on record the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of a co- owner (i.e., Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli) in ITA No. 344/AHD/2026, Dated 03/08/2026. It was submitted that in identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under:
“2 The Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved against the action of CIT(A) in conforming the penalty of Rs.31,95.813/- levied by the Assessing Officer (in short the AO) under Section 271D of the Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with other co-owners sold a property at a consideration of Rs.27,90,00,000/-. The assessee received his share of the sale consideration at Rs. 1,16,25,000/- as per the sale deed. Apart from this amount, the assessee also received Rs.31,95,813/- as sale proceeds in cash. Though, the assessee, as advised, declared his share of sale consideration as per the sale deed in the return of income, however, did not disclose the amount of sale consideration received in cash. However, the assessee filed a revised return and declared the said cash amount of sale consideration therein.. The AO accepted the revised return, however, levied penalty u/s 271D of the Act for receiving the sale consideration of Rs.31,95,813/- in cash in violation of provision of Section 269SS of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO.
Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it was duly explained before the lower authorities that the assessee and his family members were agriculturists and were not aware of the relevant provisions of the Act prohibiting acceptance of sale consideration in cash. It was further explained that the assessee and his family members were in dire need offunds, therefore, they collectively decided to sell their ancestral property. The purchasers were willing to purchase the property only if, the assessee and his family members would accept partial amount in cheque and partial amount in cash. Since, the assessee and his family members had no choice, but to accept the partial amount in cash in lieu of sale of the property because they were in dire need of funds, therefore, they acceded to the condition of the purchasers to accept partial amount in cash. That the assessees were not aware that the same would be in any manner a violation of Income Tax Provisions. Ld. AR of the assessee has further submitted that when the assessee and his family members came to know that they were supposed to disclose the entire sale consideration including the amount received in cash, they immediately filed revised return of income, even prior to issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee and his family members were under bonafide belief that they have not committed any violation of law in accepting the partial amount in cash out of sale consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further brought our attention to the order passed in case of co-sharer, namely, Jayaben Ramanlal Tamboli, PAN No. AFCPT8501L, order dated 25.09.2024, wherein, in identical facts and circumstances, in relation to same transaction of sale of land, penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were initiated by the AO, however, after considering the submissions made by the said co-sharer who had sold the property in question alongwith the assessee, the AO accepted the explanation and noadverse inference was drawn against the said assessee and the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were dropped. Since, the said case is relating to the same transaction of the sale of the property and since, in the case of co-sharer, the AO has dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act, hence, the case of the assessee being on equal footing and the assessee having explained the reasons for acceptance of small amount in cash out of total sale consideration and duly offered the said sale consideration for taxation, the impugned penalty in the case of the assessee is ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.”
The Learned Departmental Representative could not distinguish the above decision of the Tribunal either on facts or in law. Therefore, respectfully following the same we delete the penalty of INR.42,61,082/- levied upon the Assessee. Thus, Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee is allowed.
In result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 23.10.2026 (Gangadhar Panda) Judicial Member
िदनांकDated : 23.10.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;HC.PS आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent. JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY
DN: c=IN, o=PERSONAL, संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT title=6087, DEVENDRA 2.5.4.20=7e5568a89b633f174b28 a80f5e63c638da40b7313fb47eba 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) efda841cf59d1703, BHAI postalCode=380059, st=Gujarat, 5. serialNumber=816dc56e896211a िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 1a21ccc4abc94ddc94458f4a1b37 UPADHYAY be8e1854e9399295106d4, cn=JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. UPADHYAY Date: 2026.10.28 10:10:33 +05'30' आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026