R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी जगदीश, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.2165 & 2166/Chny/2024
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan,
13/25, Krishnamachari Avenue,
Adyar,
Chennai-600 020. v.
The Addl.CIT,
Central Range-1,
Chennai-34. [PAN: AGZPA 9406 B]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr. M. Karunakaran,
Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr. P.K.Senthil Kumar,
Addl.CIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
14.11.2024
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
29.01.2025

आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai, both dated 27.09.2023 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2017-18 & 2018-19
confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter in short "the Act”) of Rs.2.05 Crs. (for AY 2017-18) and Rs.1.85 Crs. (for AY 20
Sec.269SS of the Act.
levied for both the asse
Sec.269SS are similar, mutatis mutandis with t
2. At the outset, th delay of ‘262’ days alo since there were glitch impugned order confirm appeals. Therefore, the the contents of the affid that the assessee does action of the assessee c condone the delay of 26
adjudicate the grounds
3. Before adverting relevant to set out th relating to the case ar engaged in the real es carried out in the prem resulted in discovery of ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::2 ::

018-19) for the alleged violation o
Since both the parties agreed th essment years u/s.271D of the Act therefore, the decision of AY 201
that of AY 2018-19. he assessee has filed petition for ong with affidavit, perusal of whic hes in the computer, assessee did ming the penalty, which led to delay e assessee pleads for leniency. After davit and petition for condonation of sn’t stand to gain by not filing the can’t be termed to be deliberate and 62 days in filing of both the appeals of appeals raised by the assessee.
to the grounds raised in these app he background facts in context. T re that, the assessee, an aggregat state business. A search u/s.132 o ise of Dr. Maya Vedamurthy on 02
f certain loose sheets containing M

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan of provisions of hat the penalty for violation of 7-18 will apply condonation of ch reveals that n’t receive the y in filing of the r going through f delay, we find e appeals. The d therefore, we and proceed to peals, it is first
The brief facts tor of lands, is of the Act was .03.2018 which Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) b
03.07.2014, in terms o negotiate the acquisitio contained the terms of to the assessee, the A statement was recorded is noted to have explain the purchase of 2.65 a sellers i.e. small land ow had paid aggregate sum were paid in cash, which land brokers in the pres explained that, since h paid by Shri M. Vedamu these amounts were n offered commission in facilitating this transact that, this particular acq completed, because the transmission lines on th
4. In light of the ab dated 11.11.2019 reope
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::3 ::

between the assessee and Shri M. V of which the assessee was engaged on of land on his behalf. The said payment. Since these documents in AO made post search enquiries fro d u/s 131 of the Act on 06.06.2018
ned that, he was a middleman who w acres of land for Shri M. Vedamurt wners. He further stated that, Shri m of Rs.7.35 crores, out of which h the assessee would immediately h sence of Shri M. Vedamurthy. The a e was only the middleman and th urthy through him immediately to th not shown in his accounts. The as ncome of Rs.85,00,000/- in AY tion. The assessee is noted to have quisition of land by Shri M. Vedam e land was not clear due to TNEB e said land parcel.
bove, the AO issued notices u/s.15
ening the assessments for AY 2016-

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan
Vedamurthy on d to liaison and document also nter alia related m him and his
8. The assessee was negotiating thy from many
M. Vedamurthy
Rs.6.10 crores handover to the ssessee further e advance was he land brokers, ssessee further
Y 2016-17 for also submitted murthy was not B erecting high
53C of the Act
-17 & 2017-18. It was brought to our originally filed return of Rs.29,16,160/-. Pursua is noted to have offered of income filed in respo
Act was accepted by the of income on 04.12.201
153C of the Act, as ori
19, the assessee filed income at Rs.15,63,190
were also completed at However, the AO noted lacs, Rs.2.05 Crs. & Rs.
M. Vedamurthy (spouse
18 & 2018-19 respectiv
Siruseri Village, Tirupo violation of provisions o penalty proceedings u/s 5. The assessee is assessment years tha commission and that h lakhs for facilitating the ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::4 ::

r notice that for AY 2016-17, the f income on 15.10.2016 declaring t nt to the notice u/s 153C of the Ac d commission income of Rs.85 lakh onse thereto. The income returned u e AO. For AY 2017-18, the assessee
19 admitting his total income at Rs ginally declared u/s 139 of the Act return of income on 13.10.2018
0/-. The assessments for AYs 2017
t the same income as declared by d that, the assessee had received a .1.85 crores in cash, by way of adv e of Dr.Maya Vedamurthy) in AYs 2
vely, towards purchase of immova orur Taluk, which according to th of Sec.269SS of the Act. He accord s 271D of the Act.
noted to have taken a stand t he was a land aggregator wh he had received aggregate commi e impugned transaction, which he

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan e assessee had total income of ct, the assessee hs in the return u/s 153C of the filed his return
.9,59,930/- u/s t. For AY 2018- admitting total
7-18 & 2018-19
y the assessee.
a sum of Rs.85
vance from Shri
2016-17, 2017- ble property at he AO, was in dingly, initiated across all the ho worked for ission of Rs.85
had offered to tax as his undisclosed
Rs.6,10,00,000/- was n own proprietary capa facilitators/brokers for Shri M. Vedamurthy.
6. It was brought to AYs 2016-17, 2017-18
notice u/s.274 r.w.s.2
assessee to show cause the Act should not be m
& Rs.1.85 Crs. in AYs violation of Section 269
put forth by the assess penalty upon the assess
2016-17, as done in AY us.
7. In the orders im noted to have referre assessee [first party] an Dr. Maya Vedamurthy, the Addl. CIT, Shri M.
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::5 ::

income in AY 2016-17, and tha not received by him from Mr. M Ved acity but, was disbursed immed acquiring large pieces of land in t our notice that, post completion of & 2018-19 on 27.12.2019, the Ad
271D of the Act dated 12.03.20
e as to why an order imposing pena made for receiving cash of Rs.85 lac s 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 r
9SS of the Act. After considering t see, the Addl. CIT is noted to have see for violation of Section 269SS o
Ys 2017-18 & 2018-19, which are im mpugned in the present appeal, th ed to the MoU dated 03.07.2014
nd Shri M. Vedamurthy [second par who was searched on 02.03.2018
Vedamurthy had paid cash of Rs

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan at, the cash of damurthy in his diately to the he presence of assessment for ddl. CIT issued
21 asking the lty u/s.271D of cs, Rs.2.05 Crs.
respectively, in the explanation not levied any of the Act in AY mpugned before he Addl. CIT is 4 between the ty], husband of 8. According to s.6,10,00,000/- towards purchase of the also accepted in his sw the details of the sched
CIT observed that the and Rs.1.85 crores in A the Addl. CIT, the receip of ‘specified sum’ as def the assessee had paid rescue him from the ri therefore concluded th consideration towards t to Rs.2.05 crores and respectively, then irresp or not, or that the paye or not, the assessee wa with Section 269SS of t levied penalty of Rs.2.0
AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19
8. Being aggrieved b preferred appeal before assessee is in appeal be ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::6 ::

e land parcel to the assessee, which worn statement dated 27.06.2018. dule of payments given by the asse assessee was in receipt of cash of AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectivel pt of this sale consideration fell with fined in Section 269SS of the Act an these sums immediately to the b gors of Section 269SS of the Act.
hat, since the assessee had rece transfer of immovable property in c d Rs.1.85 crores in AYs 2017-1
pective whether the transfer ultima er had offered the impugned sum a as liable to be penalized under Sec the Act. The Addl. CIT is accordingly
5 crores and Rs.1.85 crores u/s 271
9 respectively.
by the above orders of the Addl. CIT e the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the efore us.

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan h the latter had Taking note of essee, the Addl.
Rs.2.05 crores y. According to hin the meaning nd the fact that brokers will not The Addl. CIT eived part sale cash amounting
18 & 2018-19
ately took place as their income tion 271D read y noted to have 1D of the Act in T, the assessee same. Now the 9. In the several gr sum & substance assa impugned penalty on se contended that, the im impugned proceedings four years. The assess which the impugned or assessee further urged
269SS did not apply to penalty be set aside. T was only the broker /
who had received the a be subjected to penalty the MOU as well as th argued that, it was not M Vedamurthy and was cash paid by Shri M V land brokers through w assessee never receive contention that the asse fact that the commissi dealing had been accep
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::7 ::

rounds raised in the appeal, the a ailed the action of lower authoriti everal fronts. The Ld. AR for the ass mpugned order was barred by lim u/s 271D of the Act was initiated a ee has further contended that eve rders were passed were barred by that, even on merits, the provisi the impugned issue and therefore p
The main argument of the assesse middleman and not the ‘seller’ in dvance in his own right and therefo in terms of Section 269SS of the A he sworn statement, the Ld. AR fo in dispute that the assessee was th s assisting him in acquiring land of 2
Vedamurthy was immediately hand whom the land was being purchase ed any advance in his own right essee was only a land broker was ev ion income offered by the assesse pted and assessed to tax by the Re

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan assessee has in es levying the sessee has first mitation as the after a lapse of en the date on limitation. The ions of Section pleaded that the e was that, he the transaction ore he could not Act. Referring to or the assessee he agent of Shri
2.65 acres. The ed over to the ed and that the t. Further, the videnced by the ee in this land evenue. The Ld.

AR accordingly submitt through the assessee to be regarded as ‘advan assessee, as wrongly he to the rigors of Secti contended that the impu
10. On the other hand the order of the lower a rendered by the Ld. CIT buyer or seller in th property, then also suc u/s 269SS of the Act, i the said provision.
11. We have heard b before us. Before adve look at the relevant pen before us. The said prov
“No person shall to as the deposito than by an accou electronic clearing electronic mode a ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::8 ::

ed that, the advance paid by Shri o the land brokers for the small land nce received towards sale conside eld by the lower authorities to subje on 269SS of the Act. The Ld. A ugned penalty ought to be set aside d, the Ld. DR appearing for the Reve authorities. He particularly relied up
T(A) holding that, even if the recipie he transaction involving transfer h recipient would be liable to the ri in absence of any such exception b both the parties and perused the m rting to the facts of the case, let nal provisions of Section 269SS, whi vision is noted to read as under:- take or accept from any other person (he or), any loan or deposit or any specified su unt payee cheque or account payee bank d g system through a bank account or throug as may be prescribed, if,—

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan
M Vedamurthy owners cannot eration’ by the ct the assessee
AR accordingly e.
enue supported pon the findings ent was not the of immovable gors of penalty being laid down material placed us first have a ich is in dispute erein referred um, otherwise raft or use of gh such other

(a) the amount of amount of such lo
(b) on the date o sum, any loan or such person from has fallen due or unpaid; or (c) the amount o together with the (b), is twenty thousan
Provided that the deposit or specifi or specified sum t
(a) the Governme
(b)any banking co
(c) any corporatio
(d)any Governme the Companies Ac
(e) such other in associations or b to be recorded in Provided further t loan or deposit o or deposit or sp whom the loan o both having agri chargeable to tax
Provided also tha for the words "tw had been substitu
(a) such deposit i primary co-opera member; or ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::9 ::

f such loan or deposit or specified sum or t oan, deposit and specified sum; or of taking or accepting such loan or deposi r deposit or specified sum taken or accept m the depositor is remaining unpaid (whethe r not), the amount or the aggregate amou or the aggregate amount referred to in e amount or the aggregate amount referred nd rupees or more:
e provisions of this section shall not apply t ed sum taken or accepted from, or any lo taken or accepted by,—
ent; ompany, post office savings bank or co-ope on established by a Central, State or Provin ent company65 as defined in clause (45) o ct, 2013 (18 of 2013); stitution, association or body or class of odies which the Central Government may writing, notify in this behalf in the Official that the provisions of this section shall not r specified sum, where the person from wh ecified sum is taken or accepted and th or deposit or specified sum is taken or a cultural income and neither of them has x under this Act:
at the provisions of this section shall have wenty thousand rupees", the words "two uted in the case of any deposit or loan whe s accepted by a primary agricultural credit ative agricultural and rural development b

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan he aggregate t or specified ted earlier by er repayment unt remaining n clause (a) d to in clause o any loan or an or deposit erative bank; cial Act; f section 2 of f institutions, y, for reasons
Gazette:
t apply to any hom the loan he person by accepted, are s any income e effect, as if lakh rupees"
re,––
t society or a bank from its (b) such loan is primary co-opera member.]
Explanation.—For (i) "banking comp
Banking Regulati bank or banking i
(ii)"co-operative
"primary co-oper have the meanin sub-section (4) o
(iii)"loan or depos
(iv) "specified su advance or other whether or not th

taken from a primary agricultural credit ative agricultural and rural development r the purposes of this section,—
pany" means a company to which the prov on Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies and institution referred to in section 51 of that A bank", "primary agricultural credit s rative agricultural and rural development gs respectively assigned to them in the E f section 80P; sit" means loan or deposit of money; um" means any sum of money receivable rwise, in relation to transfer of an immova he transfer takes place.”
above provision shows that t sion applies to a person who accept deposit or specified sum otherwis or account-payee bank draft. The st proviso, attached to the sec companies, post office savings ban tral or State Governments; the s ing agricultural income, whose tax Act. The category of exemptio ation there may be certain cases y. For example, if a servant or age e loan or receives the specified su

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan society or a bank by its visions of the includes any Act; society" and t bank" shall xplanation to , whether as able property, the prohibition ts from another se than by an provisions are ction, excludes k; corporations second proviso income is not ons is also not s in which the ent accepts the m on behalf of his master or principal t a person receiving the working only in fiduciar deposited on behalf of t thus the violation of sec master or the principal sum was received.

then such agent or servant cannot b specified sum because such agen y capacity or intermediary. The am the master or the principal as the ca ction 269SS is to be considered in l for whom and on whose behalf o ed sum’ is noted to have been de to Section 269SS, to mean any advance or otherwise, in relation to whether or not the transfer ultimate that, in a ‘transfer’ of a capital as there are two parties involved, v elation to the transfer of an immov t or earnest money etc., would be r
The specified sum as defined in Cla
269SS of the Act is meant to act as their immoveable property in ca r receives monies in cash for t hen the entire monies would essent alty u/s 269SS r.w.s.271D of th

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan be treated to be nt or servant is ount is actually ase may be and the case of the of the specified fined in Clause sum of money o transfer of an ely takes place.
sset by way of viz. buyer and eable property, received by the ause (iv) of the a deterrent for ash. In such a ransferring his tially have to be e Act, to the Government. The term context of the ‘seller’
facilitating the transfer recipient of the ‘specifie capacity but for and on was routed through him immediately handed ov recipient of the ‘spec receivable by him nor transferor of the immo analogy we can say tha
269SS cannot be fasten inference drawn by th transaction of transfer be liable to the rigo countenanced. In our c of the advance or mon property can be subject

m ‘specified sum’ is therefore ap of the property. The broker or of immoveable property, cannot be ed sum’ as he is not receiving the s behalf of his Principal. Only becaus m, i.e. he received the payment from ver the same to the seller will not ified sum’ as neither the sum o r is it an advance given to him oveable property. Thus, in light of t the liability on account of the viol ned on the servant or the agent. A he Ld. CIT(A) that, any and al of immoveable property, including ors of Section 269SS of the A onsidered view, only the person wh ies received in relation to transfer ed to the rigors of Section 269SS of an further be verified by examining vides that if a person takes or acce m in contravention of section 269SS

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan plicable in the agent, who is e said to be the ame in his own se the payment m the buyer and make him the of money was nor is he the f the foregoing ation of section Accordingly, the l parties to a brokers, would ct, cannot be ho is the owner of immoveable f the Act.
g the proviso of epts any loan or S then he shall be liable to pay, by way deposit or specified sum the specified sum and party in contravention o a person taking or acce or accepted the specifie and, therefore, penal pr case.
15. In this regard, ga
Indian Contract Act, sta the agent are discharge
"Contracts entere acts done by an have the same le into and the acts

y of penalty, a sum equal to the am m so taken or accepted. If a servant hands it over to the Principal i.e.
of section 269SS then, he cannot b epting the specified sum because he ed sum for himself but on behalf of rovision of section 271D cannot be inful reference may be made to Sec ating that the obligations arising fr d by the principal. Thisprovision is a ed into through an agent, and obligations agent, may be enforced in the same ma egal consequences, as if the contracts had done by the principal in person."
ove provision of the Indian Contract nt is to be considered as an act o y of the agent has to be limited an done on behalf of the Principal. He n the foregoing, we are of the consid on of transfer of immoveable prope ot be held liable for penal conseque

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan mount of loan or t or agent takes the contracting e treated to be e has not taken somebody else attracted in his ction 226 of the rom the acts of as under:
arising from nner and will been entered t Act, it is clear of the Principal.
nd it cannot be ence, in light of dered view that erty between a ence u/s 269SS of the Act for receiving, his Principal.
17. In light of the ab the present case to asc case could be said to be was he only an agent, of the terms of the Mo makes it clear that the acquiring different parce land into a composite l agreement, had therefo and liaison to acquire th party, i.e. the assesse clearly reveals that the land, negotiating term owners for and on beha from the sellers to the note of by us, is as follo a) “The First Party i dealing with prop with the process major extents of to make the said b) The Second Part about 2 acres
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::14 ::

for and on behalf, and handing ove ove therefore, we now revert back certain as to whether the assessee e recipient of the ‘specified sum’ in h as contended by his Ld. AR before oU dated 03.07.2014, it is noted t assessee mediates and liaisons for els of land from various parties and and. Shri M Vedamurthy, the secon ore allotted only the scope of neces he said land from the concerned own e. Further, the scope of work laid e assessee was acting as a broker ms and fixing sales consideration alf of the buyer and ensure smooth buyer. The relevant clauses of the ows:
s primarily a real estate business person w perties all over Tamilnadu. The First Party i of mediation and liaison for identifying a lands owned in different parcels by variou lands into a composite land.
ty is interested in purchasing a propert
65 cents in Siruseri Village, Thiruporu

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan er the money to to the facts of in the present his own right or us. On perusal that the recital identifying and d make the said nd party to the ssary mediation ners to the first d down therein r for identifying with the land transfer of title
MoU, as taken who has been s well versed and acquiring s parties and ty measuring ur taluk and developing the s option of inves developments ha c) The First Party ha
Second Party an lands with due finalising the pur to allot the sco acquiring the sai
First Party-since whom the lands c the said scope t ensure the smoot of the Second Par

…….

The Second Party i.
Proper identificat ii.
Negotiating term claimants of the l iii.
Covering the scop legal professional iv.
Fixing appropriate v.
Making site inspe vi.
Ensuring the inte transfer of the tit
Second Party or provisions and pr
18. It is further not assessee and his statem
06.06.2018. On perusa clearly stated that he middleman between Sh had entered into an Mo assessee is also noted t
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::15 ::

same, since the Second Part finds it as a stment in view of the remarkable ppening in and around the said area.
as identified the said lands and offered the d the Second Party has physically inspec diligence and considered all necessary rchase of the said lands. The Second Party ope of necessary mediation and liaison id lands from the concerned owners/claim the First Party is conversant with the can be procured. Further, the Second Party to the First Party since the Second Part th and assured transfer of the said lands in rty or their nominees.
y assigns the following scope in favour of th ion of lands s and conditions with the actual owners o ands and negotiate with them for purchasi pe of basically verifying title of the seller b l e sale considerations in lines with the mark ections rest of the Second Party and facilitate/liais tle and ownership of the property to and in their nominees by complying with the ap rocedures.”
ted that, the above MoU was con ment or note was recorded u/s 131
l of the statement, we find that the was a land aggregator and was hri M Vedamurthy and many sellers oU with his Principal, i.e. Shri M Ve to have stated that he would hand o

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan a prospective progress of e same to the cted the said y factors for y has decided required for mants to the parties from y has offered ty intends to nto the name he First Party r appropriate ng the lands by engaging a ket se for smooth favour of the plicable legal nfronted to the 1 of the Act, on e assessee had acting as the s, for which he edamurthy. The over the cash to the land brokers in pres him acknowledgement f the answers given by hi
“Q10. Please sta
Understanding en

Ans. Madam, I h
Sri.M.Vedamurthy property at Sirus acre. I am a la common buyer owners).

…..
Q12. Please state
Sri.M.Vedamurthy as per MOU dated

Ans. Out of Rs.7
crores in cash acknowledgemen cash to the land b
19. Further, as note paragraphs, even the assessee to be a land offered by him to tax in plea that the Revenue c the commission income be the owner of the pu
We also note that the impugned land in que
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::16 ::

sence of his Principal, Shri M Vedam for the receipt of cash. The relevant m, is noted as under:
ate what is the purpose of above Mem ntered between yourself and Sri.M.Vedamu have entered into Memorandum of Unders y towards purchase of 2 acres and 65
eri village, Thiruporur Talk at the rate of 4
and aggregator who is the middleman b
(Sri.M. Vedamurthy) and many sellers e what is the total amount received by you y towards purchase of land property at Si d 03.07.2014 to till date.
7.35 crores, I have received an amount from Shri.M.Vedamurthy. Though I u t for receipt of cash, I immediately hand brokers in presence of Sri.M.Vedamurthy.”
ed from the facts discussed in Revenue had acknowledged and broker and had assessed the comm n AY 2016-17. Hence, we find merit cannot blow hot and cold at the sam on one hand and thereafter treat t urported ‘specified sum’ and levy p e Revenue has not disputed the stion was not owned by the asse

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan urthy, and give t questions and morandum of rthy?
standing with 5 cents land
4.2 crores per between one
(small land in cash from iruseri village of Rs. 6.10
sed to give ded over the the preceding d accepted the mission income in the Ld. AR’s me time i.e. tax the assessee to penalty as well.
fact that, the essee. Further, pursuant to the MoU, parcels for Shri M Veda through and that the m been stated by the asse the details thereof were that any of the land p conveyed in favour of S the contemporaneous fa as a broker for the Shr the land sellers through did not go through, the money to the Principal, the assessee was neve was he the owner of the had acted on behalf of is through him that the We thus find merit in receipt of the ‘specified immoveable property to 20. It is noted that th that, the assessee wa therefore, irrespective
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::17 ::

the assessee had attempted to o amurthy but ultimately the transac monies were refunded. This fact is essee in his sworn statement as wel e also provided. It is also not the parcels at Siruseri Village, Thirupo
Shri M Vedamurthy. Overall therefor acts on record shows that the asse i M Vedamurthy, who had given ca h the assessee and later on since e land seller or the broker had refu i.e. Shri M Vedamurthy. It is there r the ‘recipient’ in real sense of the e same in his own independent righ his Principal, which was Shri M Ved buyer had made payments to the in the assessee’s contention that he d sum’ in as much as he was not t o the buyer.
he lower authorities had factually e as in ‘receipt’ of part ‘sale cons of whether the transfer ultimately

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan obtain the land tion did not go noted to have l in as much as Revenue’s case rur Taluk, was e, we note that essee had acted sh advances to the transaction unded back the efore noted that e advances nor t and rather he damurthy and it ntended sellers.
e was never in ransferring any erred in holding sideration’ and y took place or not, since he was in r penalized u/s 269SS r.w
‘sale consideration’ invo
Having regard to the paragraphs, the sums
Vedamurthy by way o provisions of Section 2
whether or not the tran in the hands of the ‘rec who would be transferri assessee was not the ‘r whom the payment wa
Section 269SS of the Ac
21. We have taken c was no explicit languag apply only to ‘buyer’
authorities failed to app to transfer of immov encompass not only v property, but even exti where occupier or tena term lease in the natu
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::18 ::

receipt of the ‘specified sum’, he w.s. 271D of the Act. As noted above olved in true sense, as no transfer e e facts as already narrated in impugned in this appeal were p f ‘advance’. Although it is indeed
269SS would still apply in case of nsfer took place, but as held above, cipient’ of the monies in real sense ing the immoveable property. As no recipient’ but only the agent or fac as made, he cannot be subject to ct.
ognizance of the Revenue’s argum ge used in Section 269SS of the Ac and ‘seller’ of immoveable prope preciate that the provision would ap vable property’ and that is broa vanilla transaction of buy & sell inguishment of rights in immovable nt is vacated therefrom, or where t ure of ‘transfer’ between lessor an 5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan is liable to be e, there was no ever took place.
the preceding paid by Shri M true that the f an ‘advance’,
, it would apply i.e. the person oted above, the cilitator through o provisions of ent that, there t that, it would rty. The lower pply ‘in relation ad enough to of immovable e property viz., there is a long- nd lessee etc.,

Hence, there can be se which can be envisage property between a bu would apply to recipien property viz., who actu right. We are therefore that even a broker, wh the monies to the oth monies in relation to tra
22. Further, on the fa
‘reasonable cause’ as m the Act was amended
‘specified sum’ was intr immoveable property, w were paid, in the p
03.07.2014 viz., prior to agree with the Ld. AR t knowledge of the asse education and no know been under a belief tha the Act. Further, since
ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::19 ::

veral situations of transfer of immo ed, apart from simple conveyance uyer and seller. The provisions of nt of monies in relation to transfer ually receives the monies in his ow e unable to countenance the Reven ho receives from a principal and im her principal, shall be regarded a ansfer of immovable property.
cts of the present case, we also find mandated u/s 273B of the Act, as Se d by the Finance Act 2015, whe roduced to include amount received whereas the MoU pursuant to which resent case, admittedly was en o the introduction of the aforesaid a that this amendment would not hav essee who is a middle man havi wledge of tax laws. The assessee w at there was any contravention of a the assessee was only the middl

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan ovable property of immovable
Section 269SS r of immovable wn independent nue’s argument mediately pays s ‘recipient’ of d that there is a ection 269SS of erein the term d for transfer of h the advances tered into on amendment, we ve come to the ing elementary would have not any provision of eman and was never the recipient of treated to be contumaci
23. In view of the afo of the considered opin imposable on the asses same.
24. Since, on merits, the Act, the other leg impugned penalty ord therefore not being sepa
25. In the result, both

Order pronounced (जगदीश)
(JAGADISH)
लेखासद /ACCOUNTANT
चेई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated: 29th January,
TLN, Sr.PS
आदेशक ितिलिपअेिषत/Copy
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chenn
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF

ITA Nos.2165
(AYs 2
::20 ::

the monies in real sense, his cond ious or malafide.
oresaid reasoning on the facts of th nion that penalty u/s 271D of the ssee and therefore we direct the AO we have deleted the penalty levie gal contentions raised as to the ders have become academic in arately adjudicated upon.
h the appeals of the assessee stand d on the 29th day of January, 2025, i MEMBER
(एबीटी.
(ABY T. VA

याियकसदय/JUDI
, 2025. to:
nai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

5 & 2166/Chny/2024
2017-18 & 2018-19)
Mr. R. Anbuvelrajan duct cannot be he case, we are e Act was not O to delete the ed u/s 271D of validity of the nature and is allowed.
in Chennai.
/-
वक
)
ARKEY)
CIAL MEMBER