MIDHUN KRISHNAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 730/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 November 2025AY 2017-181 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B for accepting the cash due to commercial compulsion, immediate bank deposit, and full disclosure, which demonstrated no intention to evade tax. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold land for Rs. 31.23 lakhs, receiving Rs. 22.23 lakhs in cash unexpectedly from the buyer at the time of registration. He immediately deposited the cash in his bank account on the same day, disclosed the full sale consideration in his return of income, and invested the proceeds in a residential house. A penalty was imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for violating Section 269SS.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash exceeding the prescribed limit was justified, or if the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B for accepting the cash due to circumstances beyond his control.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 143(3),Section 269SS,Section 54,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN

Before: HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI HON’BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 04.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.730/Coch/2025
TC 26/15

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Year: 2017-18 Midhun Krishnan, The Income Tax Officer, TC 26/1520, Sakthi Nivas, Vs. Ward-1(2), Rishimangalam, Trivandrum. Vanchiyoou, Trivandrum – 695 035. PAN: BBEPK 8886L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri KMV Pandalai, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 16.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 (‘Act’ in short).

2.

Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.2,79,580. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 19.12.2019 accepting the returned income.

During assessment, the Assessing Officer noted cash deposits of Rs.22,23,000 on 27.10.2016, stated to be part of sale consideration of land. Based on this, a penalty notice u/s 271D was issued alleging violation of section 269SS.

3.

The assessee explained that he sold two plots in the same locality. First plot sold for Rs.28 lakhs through banking channels.

Second plot sold for Rs.31.23 lakhs. Out of this, Rs.9 lakhs was transferred by bank, and the balance amount was brought by the purchaser in cash at the time of registration. The assessee submitted that the buyer unexpectedly brought the remaining amount in cash at the time of completing the registration formalities. The assessee had no bargaining power and was under pressure to complete the transaction as registration was already scheduled and both parties were present. He immediately deposited the entire cash into his bank was properly disclosed in the return of income. The entire sales proceeds were invested in construction of a residential house (claimed u/s 54).

4.

The assessee has taken a ‘reasonable Cause’. The circumstances show that the assessee had no prior intention of accepting cash. The buyer brought cash suddenly on the date of registration, leaving the assessee with no real option to postpone or refuse completion. The assessee did not utilise the cash personally or keep it unaccounted, instead he deposited it in his bank the same day, evidencing bona fides. The assessee disclosed the entire transaction in the return of income, removing any possibility of tax evasion. These facts establish reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B.

Judicial precedents consistently hold that where the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction, and source of funds are accepted, and there is no intention to evade tax, penalty u/s 271D should not be imposed. Section 271D is not meant to punish technical or venial breaches but only serious violations with mala fide intent (Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 SC). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court International Finance, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5746 OF 2010 dated 12.06.2012 has held that where genuineness of transaction was never questioned and acceptance of cash was due to commercial or practical compulsion, courts have deleted penalties. The facts of the assessee’s case fit squarely within these principles.

5.

After considering the submissions of both parties, documents, and circumstances, the transaction is genuine and fully recorded in books. The assessee had no intention to contravene section 269SS.

Further, in the absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that the deposit was not a bonafide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax. The cash was accepted only due to compulsion created by the buyer at the time of registration. Immediate bank deposit and full disclosure reinforce the assessee’s bona fide conduct. These facts constitute a reasonable cause u/s 273B, therefore penalty u/s 271D cannot be levied.

6.

In view of the above findings, it is hereby held that the assessee has established reasonable cause for acceptance of cash, and

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Cochin.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →