SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction in the assessment proceedings or any other proceedings under the Act. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, the penalty is invalid.
What were the facts?
The assessee accepted Rs. 43,50,000/- in cash for the sale of an immovable property, violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax levied a penalty of Rs. 43,50,000/- under Section 271D.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271D is valid if the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction in assessment proceedings or any other proceedings. Whether the requirement of recording satisfaction is mandatory for levying penalty under Section 271D.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.41 citing155 Taxmann 383 · 2006 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 22.07.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.1505/Hyd./2025
The assessee has raised the following grounds:
“The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO in respect of violation of 269
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Likhamaram, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 19(1)(5), MumbaiMumbai22 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D/271E of the Act can only be initiated if there are pending assessment proceedings or proceedings arising from an assessment order. Since no assessment proceedings were in...
- Shri Umakant Sharma, Jhabua vs The JCIT, RatlamIndore19 Jul 2023Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.
The Tribunal held that penalty under sections 271D and 271E cannot be levied in the absence of regular assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee. The penalty was quashed as not sustainable in law.
- M/S Karia Builders, Pune vs ITO Ward 14(3), PunePune23 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law due to improper approval obtained under Section 151. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under Section 271D, which were initiated duri...
- Trendsetters Propmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Range-25, New DelhiDelhi18 Oct 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments, held that once an amount is treated as undisclosed income under Section 68 in the quantum assessment, it cannot simultaneously be treated as a 'loan simplicitor' for...
- Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Ghahtkopar, Mumbai vs ITO, Ward 27 (1) (2), Vashi, Navi MumbaiMumbai17 Jan 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the Rs. 18,50,000/- was received as sale consideration for a flat, not a loan. Regarding the Rs. 6,00,000/-, it was noted that individual loans were below Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal also noted inc...
More judgments on Section 269SS
- 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
- DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata vs Laser Power & Infra Private Limited, KolkataITA 2926/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 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
