DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DELHI, DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

ITA 4679/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2010-111 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee could support the CIT(A)'s order by raising grounds not adjudicated by the CIT(A), even if it meant raising an issue that could potentially affect the appeal. The issue of limitation for penalty imposition was considered a valid ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee received and repaid loans and advances otherwise than through specified methods, leading to a penalty under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, relying on previous High Court decisions in the assessee's own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order was passed beyond the statutory time limit, and if the assessee can raise an unadjudicated ground of limitation under Rule 27 to support the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 275,Section 142(2A),Section 250,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)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, DELHI BENCH BNEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate, Shri Arpit Goyal, CA, Ms. Aakriti Bansal, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Hearing: 08.01.2026

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 21.04.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-

23.

In this case, a penalty u/s 271D of the Act has been levied at Rs.1735,27,79,257/-.This penalty has been levied for violation u/s 269SS of the Act. It is seen that the assessee's accounts were audited u/s 142(2A) of the Act andit was found that the assessee had re

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →